ADU vs. KYEREME [1984]DLCA823

Date	1984-02-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA823

FRANCOIS JA

MENSA BOISON JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.

MUNUFIE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1984]DLCA823
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ADU <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 1<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
27 FEBRUARY 1984<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">

E. D. KOM 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 1.0pt 0in">

FRANCOIS, MENSA BOISON AND EDWARD WIREDU JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from the judgment of the High Court, Sunyani dated 29 June 1962. By
that judgment the court upheld a claim by the plaintiff for an order of
possession of house No 85 NT 48, East Sunyani commonly described as Palm Hotel
and also awarded him ¢500 damages for trespass against the defendant. The court
dismissed the counterclaim by the defendant for both general and special
damages against the plaintiff.<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">&nbsp;“24. (1) It shall not be lawful, without the
consent of the State Council concerned, to alienate or pledge any stool
property, and any instrument, and any transaction or agreement (whether in
writing or not), which purports to effect any such alienation or pledge shall,
in the absence of such consent, for all purposes be null and void.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And
finally, reference was made to the case of Establissement Maurel et Prom v. The
Legal Adviser of the Gambia (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 47 at 54 where Coote’s Law of
Mortgage, Vol. 1 at p. 170 was quoted verbatim as: “Where a lease contains a
covenant not to assign or sublet without licence, no mortgage either by
assignment or demise, will be valid unless the licence is obtained.”<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the defendant attacked the judgment appealed from as being wrong.
He argued that the provisions of the above statutes and the case referred to
above were wrongly interpreted and applied. He submitted that the correct
construction and application of the above had the effect of rendering exhibit E
null and void ab initio thus nullifying its legal effect and passing no legal
title to whoever claimed a legal right under it.<o:p></o:p>I have
carefully read the record of proceedings in this appeal and the judgment
appealed from. I have also carefully studied the provisions of the various
statutes and the case relied on by the defendant but whilst I share the view of
learned counsel for the defendant that certain portions of the judgment
appealed from, on the view taken by the learned trial judge on the
interpretation of section 75 (1) of Cap. 64 and the applicability of the
Establissement case (supra) can be questioned, I think the final conclusion
arrived at by the learned trial judge is the right one. To limit the
determination of this case on the legal validity of exhibit E, on the facts of
this case, would be narrowing the issues to be resolved and this would result
in injustice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am of
the view that whatever may be the legal effect of exhibit E, on the assumption
that the defendant’s case is made out (and I have advisedly avoided the odious
task of attempting to construe the various statutes relied on by the defendant)
I think the question to ask here is whether it would be just and fair to permit
the defendant, who already had taken the benefit and advantage under exhibit E
and obtained a collosal sum of £1,400 from Kwasi Addae, to raise and rely on the
provisions of the above statutes to avoid his own obligations under the same
exhibit E? A positive answer to the above question would mean that the
defendant can unjustly enrich himself at the expense of Kwasi Addae. Kwasi
Addae’s obligation under the transaction culminating in exhibit E was to offer
the money which he did. The obligation of the defendant under the transaction
was to offer effectively his house as<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">&nbsp;“(4) The mortgage deed being void ab initio
for want of registration with the urban council, the mortgagee had no legal
title in the property to transfer same by sale to the purchaser. <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">(5) The
only interest the mortgagee has under the mortgage transaction being on</main>