ADMINISTRATORS FOR & ON BEHALF OF CDL & ANOR (PLAINTIFF) vs. METROPOLIS DEVELOPMENT LTD & ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2016]DLHC7226

ADMINISTRATORS FOR & ON BEHALF OF CDL & ANOR (PLAINTIFF) vs. METROPOLIS DEVELOPM... [2016]DLHC7226

Date	2016-05-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/248/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7226

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

SAMUEL CODJOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTS

PEASAH BOADU FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS

[2016]DLHC7226
																																						<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" >ADMINISTRATORS
FOR &amp; ON BEHALF OF CDL &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>METROPOLIS
DEVELOPMENT LTD &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO. RPC/248/15&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: 12TH
MAY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>SAMUEL
CODJOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTS<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">

PEASAH
BOADU FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 9th May, 2016, I granted the
application for the interim preservation of 34 apartments and reserved my
reasons, which I now proceed to give.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff by this application prayed for the
interim preservation of 26 Apartments in Block A and 8 apartments in Block B in
the Villagio Vista Condominium situate at East Dzorwulu, Accra.<o:p></o:p>The case of the plaintiff is that it entered into a
Master Purchase and Sales Agreement (MPSA) with the 1st
defendant.&nbsp; This agreement is dated 31st
July, 2009. In the said agreement, the plaintiff contends that, Consolidated
Discount Limited (CDL) and CDL Asset Management Ltd (CDL Asset) agreed to
purchase 48 apartments in Blocks A,B and C at the Condominium which was to be
constructed and known as Villagio Vista Condominium situate at Dzorwulu.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff further contended that at the time
the agreement was executed, construction had not commenced.&nbsp; It is the case of the plaintiff that it was
agreed between the parties to the agreement that CDL and CDL-Asset will pre-finance
the construction.&nbsp; It is further the case
of the plaintiff that as consideration for the pre-financing of the
construction, CDL-Asset was to be given 48 identified apartments as follows:-<o:p></o:p>26 Apartment in Block A<o:p></o:p>10 Apartment in Block B<o:p></o:p>12 Apartment in Block C<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff further contended that it was agreed
that a total payment of USD 25,964,852.00 was to be paid by CDL and CDL-Asset
in 21 instalments commencing from the 1st August, 2009 and ending 1st
May, 2014.&nbsp; It is further the case of the
plaintiff that CDL and CDL-Asset were given a site plan together with a
building plan of the apartments detailing the specific apartments which have
been allotted to them.<o:p></o:p>In pursuant of the agreement, the plaintiff
contended that, a total payment of USD 19,537,516.00 had been effected by CDL
and CDL-Asset as at October, 2013.&nbsp; By
this payment, it is the plaintiff’s case that they have fully paid for 26
apartments in Block A and 8 apartments in Block B.&nbsp; It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 1st
defendant terminated the agreement and purported to refund the money paid by
the plaintiffs to them.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs contend that this conduct of the 1st
defendant constitute a breach of the agreement.&nbsp;
The plaintiffs therefore filed the present suit and prays the court to
preserve the 34 apartments pending the final determination of the suit in that
defendants are making feverish preparations and efforts to dispose of the said
34 apartments.&nbsp; It is therefore the case
of the plaintiffs that they will suffer irreparable hardship in that it would
not be able to get any tangible asset to fall on as security if the defendants
dispose of these apartments as the said apartments are the only security for
the payment they made.<o:p></o:p>On their part, the defendants admitted that the
parties entered into the said Master Purchase and Sales Agreement. It is
however the case of the defendants that the said agreement was terminated by the
1st defendant on the 18th December, 2013 due to the
failure of the DCL-Asset to satisfy the instalment payments which fell due on
August 2013 and November 2013.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>It is the case of the defendants that the
termination of the agreement has effectively brought the Master Purchase and Sales
Agreement to an end.<o:p></o:p>Defendants further contended that by the present
application the plaintiffs have elected to pursue the relief for specific
performance.&nbsp; It is further the case of
the plaintiffs that the apartments which the plaintiffs are seeking to preserve
are not the subject-matter </main>