BFT ENTERPRISE (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. OBOTANTAM EBU EFFRIM X (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT) [2010]DLCA7834

BFT ENTERPRISE (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. OBOTANTAM EBU EFFRIM X (DEFENDANTS/APP... [2010]DLCA7834

Date	2010-07-15
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/19/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7834

F. KUSI-APPIAH J.A. (PRESIDING)

S. K. MARFUL-SAU J.A.

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A.

KWADWO OWUSU AGYEMAN FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

BRIGHT OKYERE AGYEKUM FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7834
																																						<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" >BFT ENTERPRISE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OBOTANTAM EBU EFFRIM X<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/19/2010&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 15TH
JULY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWADWO
OWUSU AGYEMAN FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

BRIGHT
OKYERE AGYEKUM FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

F. KUSI-APPIAH J.A.
(PRESIDING), S. K. MARFUL-SAU J.A., C. J. HONYENUGA J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA:&nbsp; This appeal is taken from the judgment of the
High Court (Commercial Division) dated the 6th of November
2007.&nbsp; The Defendant/Appellant (to be
called Appellant) in his Notice of Appeal filed on 28th December
2007 formulated twelve (12) grounds and prayed that the Judgment and orders of
the trial court be set aside.<o:p></o:p>Before
I proceed further it is important to set the records straight regarding the
grounds argued by learned Counsel for Appellant in his statement of case and
the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal.&nbsp;
As observed Appellant’s original Notice of Appeal contained twelve (12)
grounds.&nbsp; However in his statement of
case filed on the 14th July 2009, learned Counsel for the Appellant,
argued fourteen grounds praying this court to set aside the judgment of the
court below.&nbsp; There is no evidence that
Counsel sought the leave of this court to argue the additional two
grounds.&nbsp; These two grounds were argued
in the statement of case as grounds 12 and 14.&nbsp;
When this appeal came up for hearing on 11th of May 2010 learned
Counsel for Appellant conceded to the violation of Rule 8 (7) of CI 19 and
prayed that the said two grounds be deleted from his statement of case.&nbsp; Accordingly grounds 12 and 14 as argued in
the Appellant’s statement of case would be struck out from this appeal.&nbsp; This judgment thus addresses the original
grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case itself are simple.&nbsp; The
Plaintiff/Respondent herein referred to as Respondent acting through its
Promoters and Directors negotiated for a parcel of land at Apam from the Appellant
for a salt business.&nbsp; Pursuant to the
negotiations a parcel of land measuring 40 acres was leased by the Plaintiff at
a cost of ¢53 million (GH¢ 5,300).&nbsp; This
money was paid in two installments on the 15th November 2004 and on
12th January 2005.&nbsp; On the 28th
January 2005, a lease document for the land was executed between the Respondent
on one part and the Appellant and his elders on the other part.&nbsp; The Respondent could not register the Lease
at the Land Commission, Cape Coast because the land was a subject of another lease
dated 25th July 1996 made in favour of a certain Chapermax Salt
Limited.<o:p></o:p>In
view of the alleged encumbrance on the land the Respondent commenced this
action on the 3rd November 2006.&nbsp;
Two reliefs were endorsed on the Respondent’s writ of summons namely;<o:p></o:p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for Deceit<o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Such further or other
reliefs as in the circumstances may appear just in particular the refund of
¢405,072,000 being expenses<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;incurred
by plaintiff plus interest.<o:p></o:p>The Appellant disputed the claims but did not prosecute a
counterclaim.&nbsp; At the trial itself the
Respondent testified through one of its Directors and did not call any
witness.&nbsp; The Appellant also testified
and did not call any witness.<o:p></o:p>Tendered
in evidence during the trial were Exhibit B, the two receipts covering the
payments for the land and Exhibits C the lease executed in favour of the
Respondent.&nbsp; Also exhibited at the trial
was Exhibit D which is a letter from the Lands Commission Secretariat reporting
the result of a search on the land the subject of the lease.&nbsp; That exhibit reported that the entire land
falls within a lease dated 25th July 1996, made between Ebusuapanyin
Kojo Acquah and Charpermax Salt Ltd for a period of 99 years.<o:p></o:p>In
its judgment t</main>