YAW OPPONG vs. CHARLES ANARFI [2011]DLSC2556

Date	2011-02-10
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/40/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2556

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

OWUSU JSC

ARYEETEY JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE APPELLANT

YAW BOAFOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2011]DLSC2556
																																						<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" >YAW OPPONG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHARLES ANARFI<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. J4/40/2010 &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: 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE
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">

YAW
BOAFOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

ATUGUBA, JSC (PRESIDING) DR. DATE-BAH, JSC OWUSU,
JSC ARYEETEY, JSC AND AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>AKOTO-BAMFO
JSC:<o:p></o:p>Yaw Oppong, the respondent
hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, commenced an action in the High Court against
Charles Anarfi, the appellant now simply referred to as the defendant for this
relief:<o:p></o:p>“An order for the defendant
to yield vacant possession and hand over House No_ Plot 35 Block AB Patase,
West Kumasi to the Plaintiff”.<o:p></o:p>Briefly ,the Plaintiffs case,
as gleaned from the accompanying Statement of Claim, was that he purchased House
no Plot 35 AB Patase, the subject matter of this appeal from the defendant at
an agreed sum of GH¢40,000.&nbsp; According to
him the transaction was reduced into writing; that even though the 6 month
period granted the defendant to yield vacant possession expired; he remained in
possession despite repeated demands.<o:p></o:p>The defendant resisted the
Plaintiff’s claim. The gist of his case as per the Statement of Defence filed
was that he sought financial assistance from the Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢40,000
cedis to recapitalize his 2nd hand clothing business.&nbsp; He used the house in issue as security. When,
however, the Plaintiff’s agent produced a document supposedly evidencing the
transaction for his signature, he realized it was a purchase agreement as
opposed to the loan transaction. He protested but subsequently signed upon the
assurances given by the agent that the terms of the agreement would not be
enforced since they were good friends. <o:p></o:p>According to him, the
disbursement of the loan was made in tranches and not one -time as asserted by
the plaintiff. &nbsp;In the course of time,
the Apagyahene had to intervene. He invited the Plaintiff for a discussion on
the matter as a result of which the Plaintiff offered to take interest on the
borrowed sum. The issues for determination before the High Court were:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the house was sold to the Plaintiff<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
House No_ 35, Block AB was used as a security for the grant of financial assistance<o:p></o:p>After
a full trial, the learned High Court Judge found that the transaction between
the plaintiff and the defendant was a loan transaction and not a purchase
agreement. He therefore entered judgment for the defendant against the
plaintiff. After an expatiation of the principles of unjust enrichment, he
delivered himself in these terms:<o:p></o:p>“I therefore order the defendant herein based on the
principles above cited to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of GHc37000 to the
plaintiff with interest at the prevailing Bank rate from the 6th of
June when the amount was due to the date of the issuance of the writ till date
of payment.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
Plaintiff registered his protest against the decision by filing a Notice of
Appeal consisting of 5 grounds namely:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</main>