ADU vs. ATTA AND ANOTHER [1984]DLCA824

Date	1984-07-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA824

EDUSEI JA

EDWARD WIREDU JA

ABBAN J.A.

A. G. BOADU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

[1984]DLCA824
																																						<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 646<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
10 JULY 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">

A. G. BOADU FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<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">

EDUSEI, EDWARD WIREDU AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>He
delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal against the judgment of
Anterkyi J. sitting in the High Court, Accra and dated 4 November 1983. The
plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to simply as the plaintiffs) sued
out a writ against the defendant-appellant (who will hereafter be referred to
as the defendant), claiming specific performance of a contract of sale of a
parcel of land with a dwelling-house on it and situate at Chorkor, a suburb of
Accra. It is numbered house No. 384/5. The other relief sought by the
plaintiffs was that the defendant be compelled to execute a deed of conveyance
of the said property in their favour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant put up a defence that the plaintiffs did not perform their part of
the contract by the failure to pay the agreed purchase-price within the
stipulated time and this therefore disabled them from claiming the equitable
remedy of specific performance. In a sense the defendant’s contention was that
time was of the essence of the contract of sale. The learned trial judge
acceded to the request of the plaintiffs stating that time was not of the
essence of the contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of this appeal counsel for the defendant agreed, at the suggestion of
the plaintiffs’ counsel, that the amended statement of defence should be
accepted in place of the original statement of defence. The trial judge had,
however, refused the amendment. We are in agreement with counsel for the
plaintiffs in this matter since the evidence of the defendant at the trial tallied
with the amended statement of defence and we were at a loss to appreciate the
reasoning of the trial judge in refusing the amendment if he had given due
consideration to Order 28, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again
counsel for the plaintiffs adverted to the relief sought in the notice of
appeal and said that it was not couched in the usual legal language, and the
defendant’s counsel consented that it should be so amended as to reflect the
actual relief sought and this was accordingly done. The relief then was worded
to read: “that the judgment of the High Court dated 4 November 1983 be reversed
and judgment entered for the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We wish
at this stage to place on record our appreciation for the high sense of
integrity and maturity displayed by the plaintiffs’ counsel, thus re-echoing
the oft-repeated statement that counsel as officers of the court must always
assist the court in arriving at just and fair decisions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And now
to the appeal itself. The appellant through her counsel argued two grounds of
appeal, namely:<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) The
learned judge erred in deciding that time was not of the essence of the
contract of sale between the plaintiffs and the defendant. <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">