LEO LAWOE AMEGASHI II vs. FRANCIS AMIHERE AND NANA PANYIN YENA III [2012]DLCA3616

Date	2012-10-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/159/2007
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA3616

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A.

C.J.HONYENUGA J.A

BAFFOUR DWUMAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/CO-DEFENDANTS / APPELLANTS PRESENT

MISS EWURABENA QUAYE FOR THE PLIANTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2012]DLCA3616
																																						<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" >LEO LAWOE AMEGASHI II<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS AMIHERE AND NANA
PANYIN YENA III<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE
COAST]<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">

SUIT
NO. H1/159/2007&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; &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: 25TH
OCTOBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BAFFOUR DWUMAH ESQ. FOR
THE DEFENDANT/CO-DEFENDANTS / APPELLANTS PRESENT<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">

MISS
EWURABENA QUAYE FOR THE PLIANTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<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">

MARFUL-SAU,
J.A. (PRESIDING) ADJEI, J.A. AND C.J.HONYENUGA, J.A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

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

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A.:<o:p></o:p>This appeal is a simple one as the facts are not
contentious.&nbsp; The facts of the appeal are
that the plaintiff/respondent who is referred to in this appeal as the
plaintiff acquired a building plot from the predecessor of the
co-defendant.&nbsp; There was no provision in
the lease which would entitle the lessor to exercise the right of re-entry
should the plaintiff fail to develop the plot. It is rather the Lands
Commission which introduced the issue of re-entry for not developing the plot
within two years in the schedule to the lease. <o:p></o:p>The defendant/appellant and the co-defendant/appellant
would be referred to in this appeal as defendant and co-defendant
respectively.&nbsp; The plaintiff could not
develop the plot and the co-defendant served notice of re-entry on the
plaintiff to remedy the breach within three months.&nbsp; Barely after two years, 5 months of the issue
of the notice of re-entry, the co-defendant served final notice of re-entry on
the plaintiff.&nbsp; The co-defendant sold the
plot to the defendant and that compelled the plaintiff to institute the action,
the subject matter of this appeal against the defendant and the co-defendant.<o:p></o:p>On 30th August, 2004, the Circuit Court,
Sekondi gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant and the
co-defendant.&nbsp; The defendant and the co-defendant
dissatisfied with the judgment filed a notice of appeal on 31st
August, 2004.&nbsp; The appeal has three main grounds of appeal and they are:<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “The
learned trial Judge erred in law by misapplying the provisions of section 29
and 30 of the Conveyancing Decree, 1973, NRCD 175 in the determination of the
case. <o:p></o:p>b.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
award of ¢10,000,000.00 damages to the plaintiff was wrongful in law.<o:p></o:p>c.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
finding made by the trial court, to the effect that the defendant/appellant is
not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is not borne out of the evidence
on record.”<o:p></o:p>No additional ground of appeal was filed even though
the defendant and the co-defendant indicated their intention to file same on
receipt of the record of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The appellant’s first ground of appeal was that the
trial Circuit Court Judge misapplied the provisions of section 29 and 30 of the
Conveyancing Act, 1973, NRCD, 175 and if the law is properly applied, the
judgment would be set aside.<o:p></o:p>