PRAH & OTHERS vs. ANANE [1964]DLSC1946

Date	1964-06-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1946

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE J.S.C.

N. Y. B. ADADE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

AGYEPONG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1946
																																						<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" >PRAH &amp; OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANANE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 458<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:
30TH JUNE, 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">

N. Y. B. ADADE 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">

MILLS-ODOI, OLLENNU AND ACOLATSE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MILLS- ODOI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Mills-Odoi
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal against the
judgment of the High Court, Kumasi, delivered by Apaloo J. (as he then was) on
27 May 1963, allowing the respondent’s claim for damages for breach of
contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
in this case are simple, straightforward and free from any complexity. By an
agreement in writing dated 3 June 1958, and made between the appellants and the
respondent, the respondent reluctantly allowed her seven-room house to be
pulled down by the appellants in order that the site would be used by the
Amansie East District Local Council for the purpose of building a market. By
the same agreement which was tendered in evidence at the trial as exhibit A,
the appellants promised to erect for the respondent, as a substitute, a “new
house containing seven rooms in small sizes each” and reserved to the
respondent a right of action in the event of default on the part of the
appellants. According to the respondent, the house which was pulled down was
built with swish and its interior parts were plastered with cement. It was
roofed with iron sheets and was decorated inside with blue and red paint.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Shortly
after the execution of the agreement, the appellants started building the
market on the respondent’s site and it took them only three months to complete
it; but they failed to erect, for the respondent, the house promised by them in
the said agreement, notwithstanding her repeated requests to them to implement
their promise. After waiting in vain for a period of over three years the
respondent brought this action against the appellants claiming damages for
breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants denied that they had committed a breach of the contract contained in
the agreement. They contended that the respondent’s house which was pulled down
was “a two-roomed uncompleted swish building” not worth more than £G100; that
they had in fact built for her, early in 1962, the house they contracted to
erect; and that that house was ready for her occupation. They maintained that
their failure to erect the house for the respondent earlier than in 1962 was
due to her own inability to select a site or agree with the appellants as to
which of the seven plots indicated to her by them was a suitable one on which
her building should be erected.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
arose for the determination of the trial court several issues or questions of
fact and the learned judge adequately dealt with each and every one of them in
his judgment delivered on 27 May 1963, which is now the subject of criticism in
this court. In the course of that judgment the learned judge categorically
rejected the appellants’ case and held, inter alia, that the respondent’s
building which was pulled down was wholly finished and completely roofed with
iron sheets; that it contained seven rooms which were habitable; that when the
respondent’s house was demolished the appellants gave her one room at the
ahenfie, the floor of which was bare earth, as alternative accommodation; that
the appellants refused several requests by the respondent to erect the house for
her as agreed to in the contract; that they showed a total lack of
consideration for her interests; that the respondents’ new building should have
been taken in hand and completed not later than six months from the date of the
agreement; that the appellants made no attempt to carry out the obligation they
voluntarily contracted until the writ was served on them; that the house the
appellants have erected is wholly unfurnished and is not the one which they
contracted to erect for the respondent; and that appellants had committed a
breach of their contract with the respondent and are therefore liable to her in
damages.<o:p></o:p>Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this decision the appellants appealed to
this court and learned counsel, Mr. Adade, filed on their behalf the following
grounds of appeal:<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">“(a) on
the evidence the defendants did not commit any breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>