ROURA & FORGAS LTD. vs. BRITISH BATA SHOE CO. LTD. [1961]DLHC5503

Date	1961-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5503

OLLENNU J.

J.H. LYNES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

D.E. POLLARD FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1961]DLHC5503
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">ROURA &amp; FORGAS LTD. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">BRITISH BATA SHOE CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>J.H. LYNES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

D.E.
POLLARD FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>By an agreement reached between the plaintiffs and the defendants,
confirmed by letter of offer by the plaintiffs dated the 11th February, 1960,
and accepted by the defendants by letter dated the 15th February,
1960, the plaintiffs agreed to sell and the defendants agreed to buy the
property the subject-matter of this suit. The material paragraph in the
defendants’ letter of acceptance is as follows: “For the sake of order we
hereby confirm that we have agreed to pay you the sum of £G27,750 for the
freehold property on completion of transfer of title by the agreed solicitors.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendants now refuse to complete the said agreement on the
grounds that the plaintiffs’ root of title, namely, conveyances dated the 26th
February, 1943, the 31st March, 1944, and the 31st March, 1944 conveyed only a
life interest in the hereditaments and premises, the subject-matter of the
sale, and therefore the plaintiffs as purchaser from the grantees under the
deeds, are incapable of granting the freehold title which they have contracted
to convey.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The contention of the defendants that the documents in question
conveyed only a life interest is based upon the fact that the words “and their
heirs” are not used in the said deeds in describing the purchasers.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that at common law a
freehold estate can only be created in a conveyance inter vivos by a phrase
which includes the word “heirs”, and that where that word is omitted only a life
estate could pass. Therefore, it was submitted, the omission from those
documents, after the word “purchasers” of the phrase which expression shall
include his heirs executors, administrators and assigns where the context so
admits made the estate conveyed a life interest, and not a freehold estate.
Counsel referred to Megarry on Real Property, (1947 ed.) p. 33 where the
learned author said:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The rule at common law was that a freehold estate of inheritance
could be created in conveyance inter vivos only by a phrase which included the
word heirs. A life estate could be created without using this word, but a fee
simple or fee tail could not. It is important to note that no other word would
do: ‘relatives’ ‘issue’ ‘descendants’ ‘assigns’ ‘for ever’ ‘in fee simple’ ‘in
tail’ and so on were all ineffective. Heirs was the sacred word of limitation
and had a magic which no other word possessed”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel next referred the court to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,
(3rd. ed.) Vol. 2, pp. 1295-1301 where the words “heir” and “heirs” are defined
and explained. There the rule popularly known as the rule in Shelley’s case is
used to illustrate the law that the word “heirs” is a word of limitation, not a
word of purchase, merely limiting or defining the estate that is taken by the
purchaser, but gives no indefeasible interest to his heirs. Counsel also drew
attention to the schedule to the Conveyancing Act, 1845.1(1) To sum his
submissions counsel cited Redwar’s Comments on Some Ordinances of the Gold
Coast, pp. 22-23 where the learned author said that “strict ‘words of
limitation’ such as ‘heirs,’ are still necessary at the Gold Coast” and usage .
. . has sanctioned the employment of English conveyancing forms in the Colony”.<o:p></o:p>