BRITISH BATA SHOE CO., LTD. vs. ROURA & FORGAS LTD. [1964]DLSC1884

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1884

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

DR. J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

J. LYNES FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1964]DLSC1884
																																						<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" >BRITISH BATA SHOE CO., LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ROURA &amp; FORGAS LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 190<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">

DATE:
29 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

DR. J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

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

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
incidents which led to the action resulting in this appeal are scarcely in
dispute, and they are these: The parties entered into negotiation for the sale
and purchase of a plot of land with the building thereon in Accra, and in
connection with the transaction the appellants wrote to the respondents a
letter dated 15 February 1960 which contained the following material passages:<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">“Re
property at Corner Knutsford Avenue and Kwame Nkrumah Avenue, Accra We thank
you for ours of the 11th instant in which you confirm the Agreement reached
between your Mr. Vischer and the Writer in respect of the above-mentioned
property. 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>Subsequently,
it appears that the title deeds were submitted to the solicitors of the
appellants for investigation of the title to the property. The latter, after
due examination of all the documents, advised the appellants that the legal
freehold or fee simple estate in the property was not vested in respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon that
advice the respondents thereupon instituted the action resulting in this
appeal.<o:p></o:p>For a
clearer understanding of the issue of law which arose for decision in the case,
it seems necessary to show how the title to the property was outlined or
disclosed by the title deeds produced by the respondents, and this disclosure
of the title was as follows. The title commenced with a certificate of purchase
dated 5 July 1926 (exhibit D) under the hand of Crampton Smyly, Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, whereby, in a suit entitled C. A.
Thompson; Administrator of the Estate of E. B. Thompson, deceased (Plaintiff)
v. M. D. Adegbite (Defendant), two persons, N. Nassar and Joseph Kibelan, were
declared the purchasers at a sale in execution by the sheriff of the said
Supreme Court, of the right, title, and interest, of the said M. D. Adegbite in
the property the subject-matter of this litigation. It has been assumed by all
concerned for the purposes of this case that it was the legal freehold or fee
simple estate in the said property which the said M. D. Adegbite had, or was
vested with, and which therefore passed to the co-purchasers by their purchase
at the sale in execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The next
stage is that by an agreement dated 24 July 1926 (which unfortunately is not
available but is recited in all the title-deeds subsequent to the certificate
of purchase) the joint title of the co-purchasers was apportioned or
partitioned whereby each of them became entitled to one undivided equal half
share or moiety in the said premises as tenants-in-common. The said agreement
was followed by a conveyance dated 14 August 1926 made between Nicholas Nassar
as vendor of the one part and John Mansour of Sekondi as purchaser of the other
part (exhibit E) whereby the said Nicholas Nassar conveyed “the fee simple of
one undivided half share of all that one undivided moiety of the said vendor
(Nicholas Nassar) in All that premises. . . To hold unto and to the use of the
purchaser his heirs and assigns in fee simple.” There is no dispute as to the
effectiveness of this conveyance (exhibit E) in transferring a valid legal
title. The conveyance (exhibit E) was followed by another conveyance dated 26
February 1943 made between Joseph Kibelan as vendor of the one part, and
Anthony Massoud and Anis Massoud trading together and carrying on business
under the firm name of K. Massoud &amp; Sons as purchasers of the other part
(exhibit A). It recited (1) the acquisition of the joint title as per the
certificate of purchase; (2) the agreement dated 24 July 1926 whereby the joint
title was apportioned and “the said Joseph Kibelan became entitled to one undivided
moiety thereof”; and (3) the agreement for the sale and conveyance of the said
vendor’s (Joseph Kibelan’s) one undivided equal half share or moiety. It then
proceeded to “grant and convey unto the purchasers their successors and assigns
the fee simple of the said vendor’s [Joseph Kibelan’s] one undivided equal half
share or moiety in the aforesaid premises . . . To Hold . . . unto and to the
use of the said purchasers their successors and assigns in fee simple.” Exhibit
A is the first of three conveyances which, in the contention of the solicitors
of the appellants, did </main>