WINNEY vs. MANFORD AND OTHERS [1979]DLHC1124

Date	1979-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1124

SARKODEE J.

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.

E. K. K. AKRASI FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1124
																																						<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" >WINNEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MANFORD AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 494<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:
31 JULY 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim is for specific performance of an oral agreement to lease
farming land of 306 acres at Bonsokrome in the Western Region. Alternatively,
the plaintiff claims the sum of ¢33,000 from the defendants as the cost of
cultivating 40 acres oil palm trees on part of the land offered to the plaintiff
by the defendants which land the defendants now refuse to lease to the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is a barrister-at-law and the defendants elders of Anona family of
Bonsokrome and Busua. The plaintiff says that in 1973 the defendants agreed to
lease 306 acres of their family land to him for farming purposes. The
defendants charged him ¢500 and the plaintiff agreed to accept the lease. The
plaintiff made part payment of ¢200 and gave the sum of ¢10.50 together with a
bottle of schnapps as custom demanded. The defendants, according to the
plaintiff, then promised to execute a formal lease after the plaintiff had
surveyed and demarcated the land and prepared the relevant documents. Relying
on the agreement the plaintiff caused the land to be surveyed and demarcated at
a cost of ¢800. He started cultivation and at the time of going to court he had
planted 35 acres oil palm seedlings at a cost of ¢33,000. Subsequently, the
plaintiff prepared a formal lease, tendered the sum of ¢300 being the balance,
according to him, of the price and then asked the defendants to execute the
lease. The defendants did not accept the sum of ¢300 and refused to execute the
said lease. The plaintiff therefore brought this action to enforce the said
agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants admit that they agreed to grant to the plaintiff a portion of land
for farming purposes but deny that they agreed on the extent until the land had
been demarcated. Meanwhile, they showed the plaintiff a portion of the land
they intended to give to him and allowed him to start farming on it because the
plaintiff was anxious to start cultivation as the time for clearing the bush
was running out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;He was allowed to start work subject to
ascertaining the extent of the land after demarcation and after both parties had
agreed on the price and the yearly rent to be paid. So as far as the defendants
were concerned the sum of ¢200 paid to them by the plaintiff was part payment
of customary drinks and not the price.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants say that after their head of family and the plaintiff‘s surveyor had
demarcated the land intended for the plaintiff, the plaintiff alone went with
the surveyor, re-demarcated a portion of the land and erected pillars on them.
In the course of this the plaintiff included in his land farms belonging to
other farmers and thus earmarked to himself an area of 306 acres. As a result
of this the defendants refused to execute the lease in the plaintiff’s favour,
caused the land to be demarcated again leaving out farms already granted and
cultivated by other persons thus leaving a total acreage of 238.68 for the
plaintiff. Finally the defendants say that since they and the plaintiff have
not agreed on the area to be leased, the price, yearly rent payable by the
plaintiff and the condition to be embodied in the lease, the plaintiff is not
entitled to his claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
counterclaim the defendants demand the value of sale of wild palm trees by the
plaintiff and for subletting the lands of the defendants. Also they ask for
injunction to restrain the plaintiff from further cultivating the land until he
had reached a proper agreement with the defendants.<o:p></o:p>