DJAN vs. OWOO AND ANOTHER [1976]DLHC379

Date	1976-05-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC379

EDUSEI J.

OHENE AMPOFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

C. A. LOKKO FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

COL. F. G. BERNASKO FOR SWANIKER FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANTS.

[1976]DLHC379
																																						<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" >DJAN <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;OWOO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 401<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
28 MAY 1976.<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">

OHENE AMPOFO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

C. A. LOKKO FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

COL. F. G. BERNASKO FOR SWANIKER FOR THE SECOND
DEFENDANTS.<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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this case is seeking an order for specific performance against the
first defendant as a result of an agreement made on 10 January 1975 for the
sale by the first defendant to the plaintiff of a house known as house No. 2,
West Loop, Tesano, Accra. There are other reliefs which are not relevant for
the purposes of the present application filed by the plaintiff on 25 February
1976, under Order 25, rr. 2—4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
view of the plaintiff that the determination of the two matters raised in the
application will dispose of the case in his favour. The two matters raised are,
namely: (a) whether the two receipts exhibited are sufficient memoranda to
decree specific performance of the land in dispute, and (b) whether specific
performance can be decreed on the ground of part-performance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The two
receipts are dated 10 January 1975 and 27 January 1975 for the amounts of
¢2,000.00 and ¢500.00 respectively. These sums were part payments of the
purchase price the plaintiff made to the defendant in respect of the house in
question which the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff in his argument relied on section 2 of the Conveyancing
Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 175), which states that:<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">“2. No
contract for the transfer of an interest in land shall be enforceable unless —<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) it is
evidenced in a writing signed by the person against whom the contract is to be
proved or by a person who was authorised to sign on behalf of such person; or <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">(b) it is
relieved against the need for such a writing by the provisions of section 3.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In fact
counsel’s contention is based on section 2 (a) and it is that since the
receipts were signed by the defendant and the description of the property
agreed to be sold has been stated in the receipts together with admission by
the defendant in his statement of defence as regards the purchase price of
¢25,000.00, there was compliance with section 2 (a) of the Conveyancing Decree,
1973 (N.R.C.D. 175). In his opinion the plaintiff’s case has been made out for
the court to decree specific performance of the contract against the first
defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
cannot, in my view, be a completed contract in terms of section 2 (a) of
N.R.C.D. 175 unless the contract in writing gives (i) the names of the parties,
(ii) the property to be transferred, (iii) the purchase price of the property,
and lastly (iv) the defendant must have signed, the written contract. It is
important that there must be written evidence of at least these matters. There
is no dispute that the names </main>