MADINA SHOPPING MALL ASSOCIATION vs. ROSEHILL GH. LTD., E. M. FRIMPONG AND JIMMY NUFU [2010]DLSC2514

MADINA SHOPPING MALL ASSOCIATION vs. ROSEHILL GH. LTD., E. M. FRIMPONG AND JIMMY... [2010]DLSC2514

Date	2010-04-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/3/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2514

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS) J.S.C

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

JAMES AHENKORAH ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

NATHAN P. YARNEY ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANTS /RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS.

[2010]DLSC2514
																																						<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" >MADINA SHOPPING MALL ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ROSEHILL GH. LTD., E. M. FRIMPONG
AND JIMMY NUFU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/3/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
28TH APRIL, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JAMES AHENKORAH ESQ, FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<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">

NATHAN
P. YARNEY ESQ, FOR THE DEFENDANTS /RESPONDENTS /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">

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C.,
ANSAH J.S.C., OWUSU (MS) J.S.C, &nbsp;BAFFOE-BONNIE
J.S.C.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case as stated by the Court of Appeal per Piesare J.A at pages
152-154 of the record of appeal (vol. 1) are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The
2nd Defendant/Respondent, E. M. Frimpong, who was the Managing
Director of the Rosehill Shopping (Gh) Ltd., acquired a piece of land at
Madina, and commenced construction of stores on that land.&nbsp; Some traders, who claimed to be members of
the Madina Shopping Mall Association, expressed interest in the stores being constructed,
and applied for allocation of such stores through the 3rd
Defendant/Respondent, an agent of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent.&nbsp; Traders who applied for such stores were
requested to deposit monies ranging from ¢6[Six]Million to ¢40[Forty] Million
Cedis, depending on the size of the stores required.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence of the secretary of these traders Mrs. Grace Dede Kleponi was that it
was orally agreed that the money deposit made by the traders, would be used for
the construction of the stores, for outright purchase to them.&nbsp; The traders were later made to fill
application forms.&nbsp; These application
Forms were admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘E’ [1,2,3, etc]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
Exhibit ‘E’, was a portion for the Next of Kin to be filled in.&nbsp; It was the case of the appellants that they
were asked to fill in the Next-of-Kin because the stores were for outright
purchase.&nbsp; This was denied by the
Defendant/Respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
stores were completed in about 2004, and to the surprise of the traders who had
deposited money for stores, the Defendant/Respondents presented to them,
TENANCY agreement papers, and insisted that the transaction was a lease, and
not a sale; that, the deposit paid by each trader was only a “goodwill.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
failure of all negotiations to resolve the controversy, the appellants issued a
Writ of Summons at the Lower court claiming:<o:p></o:p>[a]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A
declaration that the monies paid by individual members to the Defendants
constituted full and final purchased price for the Stores/Shops occupied by
them.<o:p></o:p>[b]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for the defendants to provide electricity, water, toilet and other
facilities for the&nbsp; Rosehill Height
Shopping Mall in accordance with Town and Country regulations.<o:p></o:p>[c]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for the Defendants to legally convey the Stores/Shops occupied by them.<o:p></o:p>[d]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Perpetual
injunction to restrain the defendants, Agents, servants, Workmen, Assigns etc
from interfering in whatever manner with their use of the Stores/Shops.<o:p></o:p>[e]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for the Plaintiff/Members to be declared </main>