FOOD SPECIALITIES GHANA LTD. vs. TECHNICAS DE MULTICONSTRUCTION S.A. [1987]DLCA741

Date	1987-01-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLCA741

ABBAN JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU J.A.

R. KOCUVIE TAY (WITH HIM MISS AMPOFO) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

FELIX NTRAKWA (WITH HIM MISS DANQUAH) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1987]DLCA741
																																						<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" >FOOD SPECIALITIES GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>TECHNICAS DE MULTICONSTRUCTION S.A. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 650<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
29 JANUARY 1987<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">

R. KOCUVIE TAY (WITH HIM MISS AMPOFO) FOR THE
APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

FELIX NTRAKWA (WITH HIM MISS DANQUAH) FOR THE 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 0in 0in">

ABBAN, OSEI-HWERE AND WUAKU JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 28
July 1986 the High Court gave a ruling in which the court granted an
application for an interim injunction. That ruling is the subject of the
present appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants were the defendants in the High Court and the respondents were the
plaintiffs. The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the
respondents) had sued the defendant-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the
appellants) for rectification of a lease agreement dated 13 September 1982 made
between the appellants, as landlords, and the respondents, as tenants, in
respect of premises at Plot No.14, Patrice Lumumba Road, Airport Residential
Area, Accra. In their writ the respondents had asked for other remedies,
including perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from recovering
possession of the said premises during the period of the lease “and from
disturbing” the respondents’ quiet enjoyment of the premises.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their
statement of claim, the respondents had alleged that they were a limited
liability company incorporated in Spain and had a place of business in Ghana as
an external company. They had also alleged that in or about 1982, they
negotiated with the appellants to lease the appellants’ premises. The
negotiation ended up in the said lease agreement which was prepared by the
appellants’ solicitors. It seems the solicitors of the appellant when typing
the name of the respondents in the body of the lease agreement, for one reason
or the other, typed the respondents’ name in a way which completely distorted
the nature and the character of the respondents. By that mistake the
respondents were made to appear as if they were an entity different from what
they are.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
representative of the respondents, not being aware of any distortions in the
name of the respondents, signed the said lease agreement on behalf of the
respondents but over the respondents’ stamp which bore the correct spelling and
description of the respondents’ name. However, the mistake or the
misdescription of the respondents’ name remained in the body of the lease
agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents, under the said lease, took possession of the premises for a term
of eight years from 13 September, 1983, “renewable and determinable as
hereinafter mentioned.” After the lease had run for a little over two and half
years, the appellants capitalising on the misdescription or wrong spelling of
the respondent name in the lease, brought an action in the High Court in suit
No. 116/86 to set aside the lease agreement and for the recovery of the
premises. The basis of that claim is not clear since the statement of claim
which the appellants filed in that suit was not exhibited in the application
before the High Court; but the statement of defence filed by the respondents in
that suit was exhibited as exhibit PS4. In the defence, there was a denial of
misrepresentation on the part of the respondents, in entering into the lease
agreement with the appellants. Paragraphs (4), (14) and (15) of that defence
read:<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">“(4) The
first defendants say in answer to paragraph (3) that though the agreement
prepared by the plaintiffs was executed by the plaintiffs and the first
defendants on 13 September 1982, it was not on the basis of any representations
as alleged by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were not and could not have
been so induced . . . (14) The repeated misdescription of the first defendants
is even manifest in the inconsistent names given to the first defendants in the
writ of summons and the statement of claim. (15) The first defendants contend
that the misdescription of the first defendants was negligently made by the
plaintiffs and their solicitors and that the plaintiffs are not only estopped
from denying the validity of the agreement but also the mistake is not such as
will entitle the plaintiffs to resile from the agreement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>