APPIAH vs. TAKYI [1982]DLCA2095

Date	1982-02-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLCA2095

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT.

ADDAI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1982]DLCA2095
																																						<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" >APPIAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TAKYI <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 1<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:
18 FEBRUARY
1982<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">

ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT. <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, MENSA BOISON AND EDWARD WIREDU
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.A.<o:p></o:p>Mensa
Boison J.A. This is an appeal from the judgment of a Kumasi Circuit Court dated
20 August 1979, and presided over by P. K. Twumasi, Esq. (then a circuit court
judge) whereby he found for the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery
of possession of a built-up estate plot in addition to the ancillary reliefs of
perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Briefly
the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was at all
material times the lessee of estate plot NO.15, North Suntresu in Kumasi from
the principal lessors, the State Housing Corporation (the corporation for
short). For all practical purposes the plaintiff had become owner in possession
of the said property by having exercised the option of purchase of the
residuary unexpired term of the head lease in 1972, by payment in full of the
capital sum for development. It is not clear whether this was done entirely by
way of rents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He thus
became entitled to sell the residuary tenn of years, and which he appeared to
have so expressed his desire to do to some officers of the corporation in
Kumasi. On the introduction of one such officer, a Mr. Quansah, the
defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) as a prospective
Purchaser met the plaintiff in January 1973.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He thus became
entitled to sell the residuary term of years, and which he appeared to have so
expressed his desire to do to some officers of the corporation in Kumasi. On
the introduction of one such officer, a Mr. Quansah, the defendant-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) as a prospective purchaser met the
plaintiff in January 1973.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
disagreement on the bargain price reached. According to the plaintiff it was
¢5,000 of which the defendant paid ¢3,200 the next day, with the balance of
¢1,800 to be paid within two weeks. The learned trial judge preferred this
version to the defendant’s that the sale price asked for and agreed upon was
¢3,200, which the defendant paid three days after the bargain against a receipt
dated 12 January 1973. Be that as it may, the plaintiff in the meantime, by the
form of an affidavit dated 11 January 1973, did inform the corporation of his
transaction with the defendant, and asked for the corporation’s consent to
assign the unexpired term of the leasehold to the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This was
followed by a personal interview of the plaintiff and the defendant together,
by the corporation at their office, at which the two answered an interrogatory,
exhibit E, - their answers being taken down, a step apparently designed to ensure
and verify that the parties fully understand the import of the transaction as
assignor and assignee; and further to introduce the new assignee to the
corporation. The two having, it seems, successfully passed the gauntlet, the
officer concerned recommended the consent - which was given on 31 January 1973.
However, by an affidavit dated 31 January 1973, the plaintiff informed the
corporation of having now rescinded his decision of leaving Kumasi for good and
consequently withdrawing his request for consent to assign to the defendant.
The plaintiff therefore would neither execute the lease nor give possession to
the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>