[2010]DLSC2514 • April 28, 2010 • Supreme Court •
MADINA SHOPPING MALL ASSOCIATION vs. ROSEHILL GH. LTD., E. M. FRIMPONG AND JIMMY NUFU
The 2nd Defendant, Managing Director of Rosehill Shopping Gh Ltd., acquired land at Madina and constructed stores. Members of Madina Shopping Mall Association applied for allocation of stores, paying deposits ranging from ¢6 million to ¢40 million cedis, allegedly for outright purchase. The Defendants later presented tenancy agreements, asserting the transaction was a lease and the deposits were 'goodwill' payments. The Plaintiffs claimed ownership and sought declarations and orders for conveyance and facilities provision. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding no agreement on sale but a tenancy arrangement. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.
read moreATUGUBA, J.S.C: The facts of the case as stated by the Court of Appeal per Piesare J.A at pages 152-154 of the record of appeal (vol. 1) are as follows: “The 2nd Defendant/Respondent, E. M. Frimpong, who was the Managing Director of the Rosehill Shopping (Gh) Ltd., acquired a piece of land at Madina, and commenced construction of stores on that land. Some traders, who claimed to be members of the Madina Shopping Mall Association, expressed interest in the stores being constructed, and applied for allocation of such stores through the 3rd Defendant/Respondent, an agent of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. Traders who applied for such stores were requested to deposit monies ranging from ¢6[Six]Million to ¢40[Forty] Million Cedis, depending on the size of the stores required. The evidence of the secretary of these traders Mrs. Grace Dede Kleponi was that it was orally agreed that the money deposit made by the traders, would be used for the construction of the stores, for outright...