DIKYI AND OTHERS vs. AMEEN SANGARI INDUSTRIES LTD. [1989]DLHC2007

Date	1989-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC2007

KPEGAH J.

FRANK SAWYERR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

C.M. CANN (WITH HIM EBOW QUASHIE) FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation"  hidden>[1989]DLHC2007</p>
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">DIKYI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AMEEN SANGARI INDUSTRIES LTD.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">[1992] 1 GLR 61<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">FRANK SAWYERR FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">C.M. CANN (WITH HIM EBOW QUASHIE) FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<b><u> <o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">CORAM</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">This is a ruling on a submission of no case made by the defendants
after the plaintiffs have closed their case. The ruling will involve a
consideration of the scope and import of section 18 of the Conveyancing Decree,
1973 (N.R.C.D. 175). Despite the relative old age of N.R.C.D. 175, this appears
to be the first time that a major action of this type is being brought to
invoke the provisions of section 18 of N.R.C.D. 175. I assume, although they
did not say so, the efforts of both counsel had not been able to bring out any
decision by our courts on the provision. This assumption is based on the fact
that no decided case on the section was brought to my notice by them; and my
own efforts have revealed none. This ruling may therefore have some fascination
but I am not sure if I will be able to adequately deal with the problem to
satisfy expectations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">In this action, the plaintiffs are claiming a declaration that a
lease dated 5 May 1975, and stamped in the Deeds Registry as No. C.C.L. 561/75,
and executed between their family and the defendants’ company is
unconscionable. Also, an order setting aside the said lease on grounds of
unconscionability is being sought. By the said agreement or lease, the
plaintiffs’ family leased to the defendants, for 99 years, a 575-acre farmland
for palm plantation to support the defendants’ soap manufacturing business. The
consideration for this lease is ¢500 plus one sheep and a bottle of schnapps
per annum. The sheep and the bottle of schnapps are to be used for certain
annual rites on the land. There is no clause in the lease which permits a
periodic renegotiation of the consideration. The plaintiffs are claiming that
the agreement is so unfair or hard on them that it qualifies to be considered
as an unconscionable bargain involving land and should be set aside under
section 18 of N.R.C.D. 175.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">The plaintiffs’ case, briefly put, is that the defendants’ company
obtained a lease from their Nsona family acting by the then occupant of the
stool, Nana Tandoh IV. The lease, as I have said, is for 99 years and the rent
is ¢500 plus one sheep and a bottle of schnapps. This agreement was executed on
behalf of the family by Nana Tandoh IV and on behalf of the defendant company
by the present occupant of the stool, Nana Tandoh V; he was at the time of
execution of the lease the heir-apparent to the stool and was also a
director-shareholder of the defendant company. When later the family realised
that the consideration payable was too low, it, through its new crop of elders,
tried to secure an increase in the annual rent payable and approached the
chairman of the company, one Mr. Wassick Sangari, for renegotiation of the
terms but their approach was spurned by the defendants. This prompted the
family to seek redress from the courts.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">In support of their case, the plaintiffs led evidence and called
witnesses to show the circumstances under which the lease was signed and the
personalities involved in its execution. They also led evidence to show that
the palm plantation on the land is the mainstay of the defendants’ soap
manufacturing business and is of extreme importance and economic value to the
defendants’ business. Evidence was also led to show the enormous economic
potential of a palm plantation of the type on the land and its various economic
uses in our Ghanaian society. Of immediate significance and relevance to this
case, however, is the fact that the plantation supplies the defendants their
palm oil requirements for the soap manufacturing business; and also the
palm-kernel obtained as a by-product in the process is used for palm-kernel oil
which can also be used to manufacture soap. The palm trees, from the evidence,
cannot be said to have reached their “menopause” and as such bearing fruits at
diminishing returns to necessitate the trees being felled to tap palm-wine for
distillation of akpeteshie (local gin) to enable new ones to be planted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">Although there is no evidence that the palm trees are benefiting
the defendants in this way, their potential for so doing in the future cannot
be glossed over since it can safely be assumed that if the trees are no longer
bearing fruits to support the industry, they would be felled and new ones
planted. The felled trees could then be used to tap palm-wine for eventual
distillation of akpeteshie.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">There is a significant aspect to the plaintiffs’ case and I think
it needs to be highlighted. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when the
defendants needed the land, the one who approached the family and acted on
their behalf was one Saied Ekow Sangari, a member of the plaintiffs’ Nsona
family and the heir apparent to the family stool which was then occupied by
Nana Tandoh IV who acted for and on behalf of the family. Indeed, the evidence
on this is admitted and it is also admitted that the said Saied Ekow Sangari actually
succeeded to the stool after the death of Nana Tandoh IV. Ekow Sangari is now
Nana Tandoh V. When he acted on behalf of the company he was a director and
shareholder. It is in this capacity that he transacted the business on behalf
of the company with his family. Under normal circumstances he should have
brought this action on behalf of the family but the family decided the case be
prosecuted by so</main>