OSAFO vs. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION [1991]DLHC2051

Date	1991-03-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC2051

EBIASAH J.

SETH AKOTO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

I. L. MILLS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1991]DLHC2051
																																						<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: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">OSAFO<o:p></o:p><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 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">STATE HOUSING CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 30<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 27 MARCH
1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SETH AKOTO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

I. L. MILLS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF EBIASAH J.<o:p></o:p>By an oral application before this honourable court on 20 March
1991 the defendants’ counsel sought leave of the court to exercise an option
under the plaintiff’s amended indorsement on his original writ of summons filed
together with a statement of claim on 25 April 1985. It would be recalled that
this court granted the plaintiff leave to amend on 15 January 1991, by which a
third additional relief was added to the said writ of summons to 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">“(3) Alternatively the refund of the sum of ¢19,000 plus interest
at the current bank rate, and the return of 86 bags of cement and 2,500 pieces
of cement blocks or their open market value at the date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p>The defendants’ counsel argued that the third additional relief
should be interpreted by the court as granting the defendants with a clear
option to select or choose from the plaintiff’s writ of summons which of the
three reliefs they would like to give to the plaintiff for his alleged losses
under the contract of sale of 30 June 1976. That being the case, the defendants
would like to exercise that option by settling the case on the third
alternative relief.<o:p></o:p>The issue for the court to decide is whether by his amended
indorsement on the writ of summons by which an alternative relief was added to
the two previous reliefs sought against the defendants, the plaintiff presented
the defendants with a clear option the exercise of which clearly foreclosed the
two other previous remedies sought by the plaintiff against the defendants.<o:p></o:p>Perhaps it would be appropriate to state the reliefs on the
plaintiff’s writ of summons in their entirety in order to clarify the
situation. The three reliefs of the plaintiff are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:37.5pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “An order for the specific
performance of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the
defendants in respect of the premises on plot No. G10 (SH 3), Nsukwao,
Koforidua. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:37.5pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from interfering with the
plaintiff’s possession thereof or transferring or in any manner alienating the
said property to a third party. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:37.5pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:
-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Alternatively, the refund of
the sum of ¢19,000 plus interest at the current bank rate, and the return of 86
bags of cement and 2,500 pieces of cement blocks or their open market value at
the date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p>It is of interest to remember that the third alternative amended
relief was granted by this court on 15 January 1991 when evidence had already
started and the plaintiff was about to close his case. The defendants were
about to open their defence when their counsel made this present application to
exercise their option under the third alternative indorsement on the plaintiff
‘s writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>