ANKRAH vs. OFORI [1961]DLHC1978

Date	1961-02-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC1978

AKAINYAH J

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT

G. KORANTENG-ADDOW FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

[1961]DLHC1978
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

ANKRAH

[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]

[1963] 1 GLR 101

DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

A.
W. ACQUAAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

G.
KORANTENG-ADDOW FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

</div>

AKAINYAH J.

</div>

&nbsp;

In this action the plaintiff sues under the Land Development
(Protection of Purchasers) Act, 19601 for the relief set out in his writ.

(a) a person (in this section referred to as the purchaser) took a
conveyance of land in a prescribed area at some time after 31st December, 1944
and before the date on which the area became a prescribed area, and

(b) the purchaser or a person claiming through him, in good faith
erected a building on the land, and

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>(c) a possession order was
made in relation to the land in proceedings finally disposed of before the date
on which the area became a prescribed area, and was so made by reason that the
conveyance taken by the purchaser did not operate to confer on him the title to
the land, the person against whom the possession order was made may, at any
time within twelve months after the date on which the area became a prescribed
area, apply to the High Court for an order under this section.”

By a legislative instrument2 entitled the Land Development
(Protection of Purchasers) (Accra Prescribed Area) Instrument, 1961, made the
19th May, 1961, and published in the Ghana Gazette on the 2nd June, 1961, the
Accra area described in the schedule thereto was declared a prescribed area for
the purposes of the Act and the time for bringing an action by interested
persons began to run from the 19th May, 1961.

By this application, the plaintiff has admitted that he is out of
time and he is praying for an order of this court for extension of time within
which to institute proceedings under the Act on the grounds of fraud. In
effect, the applicant is asking for a declaration that the alleged fraud of the
defendant prevented time running against him and that he still can sue. In
support of the application, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit sworn to by
him on the 14th January 1963, and a copy of a letter dated the 20th June 1961,
written by him to David Sarbah Ofori, the defendant herein, and a copy of the
defendant’s reply dated the 25th July, 1961, both of which he annexed to the
said affidavit and marked A and B respectively. In his affidavit, the applicant
alleged that as a result of representations made orally to him, he paid the sum
of £G20 in part payment of the sum to which the defendant would be entitled if
he sued under the Act. He was made to believe that the defendant would restore
his house to him without the necessity of going to court but the defendant has
now, after the lapse of the time limited by the Act, evinced an intention to
repudiate the written and oral assurances given by him and is pleading
limitation of time against the applicant. Mr. Acquaah for the applicant
submitted that the conduct of the defendant amounts to fraud in equity and that
time did not commence to run against the applicant until after he discovered
the fraud. Counsel referred to the allegations contained in the applicant’s
affidavit and said that they constituted fraud and quoted passages from
Hanbury, Modern Equity (6th ed.), p. 58, Snell, Principles of Equity (24th
ed.), p. 384 and Frank, Limitation of Actions, p. 209. He said the applicant
was vigilant at all material times and denied that he ever threatened or
imposed any fantastic terms on the defendant.

In his affidavit filed on the 28th January, 1961, in opposition to
the application, the defendant admitted making the promise to the applicant. He
contends, however, that after the promise had been made, the applicant started
to impose his own terms by making fantastic claims and issuing threats against
the defendant’s family. He also demanded an amount of’ £G4,000 as mesne profits
accruing from the house, the subject-matter of the action and therefore the
defendant’s family refused to consider the applicant’s case any more. He
contended that the jurisdiction granted by the Land Development (Protection of
Purchasers), Act 1960,3 is limited and circumscribed by the Act and that it is
outside this court’s competence to grant the enlargement of time sought by the
applicant. The defendant did not refer to the sum of £G20 alleged to have been
paid to him by the applicant. He neither denied nor admitted receipt of the
said sum but the applicant showed a receipt to the court and counsel. Mr.
Koranteng-Addow for the defendant said in reply that on the 4th December, 1962,
the defendant made it quite clear to the applicant’s solicitor that owing to
the menacing conduct of the applicant, he had given up consideration of the
applicant’s case any further. He submitted that the applicant had merely made
allegations of fraud; he has not established fraud, therefore the court should
not exercise any discretion in his favour, and the authorities cited</main>