FRANS vs. GRANT [1961]DLSC10232

Date	1961-02-21
Suit No.	G L R 108 - 109
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC10232

KORSAH C.J.

VAN LARE J.S.C

AKIWUMI J.S.C.

S. BAIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1961]DLSC10232
																																						<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" >FRANS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRANT<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 108 - 109&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:&nbsp; 21ST FEBRUARY, 1961<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>S. BAIDOO FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

C. F.
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE
J.S.C, AKIWUMI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This is an appeal from the judgment of the
Land Court, Sekondi, (Smith, J.) in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in a
case &nbsp;instituted before the
Sekondi-Takoradi Municipal Court, wherein the plaintiff (the appellant herein)
claimed possession of a house, on the ground that the defendant had committed a
breach of an agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby
the defendant who had bought the plaintiff's house at a public auction for
£G100, agreed to transfer the same to the plaintiff at the end of the year upon
payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of the sum of £G150; but if the
plaintiff failed to pay the said amount, the defendant should enter into
possession by virtue of the purchase.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the end of the year, the plaintiff failed
to pay the sum of £G150 as required by the agreement and the defendant
exercised his rights and caused the plaintiff to be ejected by order of the
sheriff. This took place in about 1940.&nbsp;
Since then, the plaintiff has endeavoured by diverse suits in various
courts to recover possession of the house. In all of these he has failed.&nbsp; After eighteen years he has brought this
action, contending that under the said agreement, the defendant upon taking
possession or enforcing his rights under the purchase should refund the sum of
£G10.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The municipal court erroneously accepted the
plaintiff's contention, and held that failure on the part of defendant to pay
the sum of £G10 was a breach of the agreement which would entitle the plaintiff
to recover possession of the house. In our view the right to recover the sum of
£G10 from defendant is not an essential part of the agreement. The proper
interpretation of the agreement is that when the defendant took possession of
the house then he should pay the £G10; the payment of this sum is therefore not
a condition precedent, the non-fulfilment of which could vitiate the rights of
the defendant derived from the sale.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Smith, J. was therefore right in the view he
took about the whole transaction. The plaintiff's entitlement to the £G10 in no
way vitiated the defendant's title to the house in dispute. This appeal is
accordingly dismissed with costs fixed at £G32 2s. 0d.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DECISION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Appeal dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

&nbsp;</main>