SAMARASINGHE vs. SBAITI [1977]DLCA1426

Date	1977-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1426

APALOO C.J.

LASSEY JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

P. A. ADJETEY (FRIMPONG WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

E. D. KOM (GBEHO WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA1426
																																						<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" >SAMARASINGHE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SBAITI <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]2 GLR 442<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:
27 JUNE 1977<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">

P. A. ADJETEY (FRIMPONG WITH HIM) FOR THE
APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E. D. KOM (GBEHO WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

APALOO C.J., LASSEY AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant is the owner of a building on plot No. 45, Seventh Avenue Extension,
Accra. On or about November 1974, she was in the course of erecting the main
building of that house. But by that date, she completed an outhouse to that
building. The respondent was, at the date material to this case, a member of
the management committee of a Lebanese school in Accra. He was desirous of
taking a lease of the appellant’s premises for the use of the school. He
therefore saw the appellant about it. According to him, the latter was
agreeable to granting a lease of the main building which was in course of
construction and the outhouse to the school. As evidence of the appellant’s
agreement to grant a lease to the school, the latter gave him a written note to
this effect, and made immediately available to the school, the then completed
outhouse. Just over a month after entering into this agreement, the school
moved into the outhouse. This was on 27 December 1974. The note which the
appellant admittedly gave to the respondent, was a terse one. It was headed:
“Use of New Premises Adjacent to No. 45, Seventh Avenue Extension, Accra.” The
body of the note records the following:<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">“I hereby
agree to rent the above premises to Mr. Osman Mohammed Sbaiti at a rental of
five thousand cedis (¢5,000) per annum for use as a school.”<o:p></o:p>It was
signed by the appellant under whose signature appeared the description
“Landlady.”<o:p></o:p>The
respondent gave evidence that in reliance on this agreement, he supplied
building materials to the appellant. These were used in constructing to
completion the main building. The evidence shows that the main building was
completed some time in 1975. It was said the appellant then reneged on the
agreement and refused to let the respondent in and indeed denied the contract.
It was this that impelled the respondent to seek the equitable remedy of
specific performance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
were significant divergences between the facts sworn to by the said respondent
and the appellant. The latter said while she was in the course of erecting the
main building, the respondent called on her on many occasions. He informed her
that he was running a Lebanese school but was being ejected from the premises
where he ran the school and needed alternative accommodation rather urgently.
The appellant said she felt compassion for him and gave him possession of the
outhouse which had then been completed. As she put it, the outhouse was let to
the respondent as a temporary measure until he got a permanent place.” Although
the appellant did not say so in express terms, she implied that to reciprocate
her kindness, the respondent offered to supply her with building materials
“which would not be paid for immediately on delivery.” The appellant accepted.
That was her explanation for the respondent’s supply to her of building
materials which were used to complete the main building. Then the respondent
behaved in a way which must have been quite inexplicable to her. When the main
building was completed, the appellant, said the respondent, “asked for the keys
to enter the house.” If there was no prior agreement to let this to the
respondent, his conduct was odd indeed. The appellant said she refused as she
“did not intend to let that house to the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant felt herself under an obligation to give an explanation of the note
which she gave to the respondent. That note clearly recites an agreement to let
the premises to the respondent at an agreed rent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant explained as follows:<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
plaintiff [i.e. the respondent] told me that the Ministry of Education wanted a
note from me to state and show that I had given accommodation for use as a
school. The plaintiff came several times and accordingly I gave him such a
note.”<o:p></o:p></spa</main>