MARIAN ASSO AMEDEDJI VS. REV. FATHER G AMPIM TETTEH [2018]DLHC10128

Date	2018-06-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0475/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10128

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

AGNES OPAREBEA MARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT

KINGSFORD DEBRAH (HOLDING BRIEF OF EDWARD SAM CRABBE) FOR DEFENDANT PRESENT.

[2018]DLHC10128
																																						<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" >MARIAN ASSO AMEDEDJI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>VS.<o:p></o:p>REV. FATHER G AMPIM TETTEH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIV.
5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. CM/RPC/0475/2017&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: 13THJUNE 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AGNES OPAREBEA MARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

KINGSFORD
DEBRAH (HOLDING BRIEF OF EDWARD SAM CRABBE) FOR DEFENDANT PRESENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>&nbsp;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Judicial
economy demands that where there is a point of law which if set down and
decided may validly dispose of the suit or some substantial issue in the suit, it
shall be prudent, efficient and cost saving at the close of pleadings or
shortly afterwards before trial, for any of the parties or the court itself to
choose that path to dispense with calling witnesses of fact for full trial, and
among, to protect itself from abuse. Order
11 Rule 18(1)d, C.I. 47; Apenteng v. Bank of West Africa [1961] GLR 196.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; With
respect to this suit, at the case management conference, considering the issues
the pretrial court set down for trial, the court agreed with the lawyers and
found it needful to set down for prior determination the legal issue apparent
on the pleadings. In furtherance thereof, the court asked the lawyers to file written
addresses on their perspectives of the law on the issue; which is, whether or
not the entire action is statute-barred by virtue of section 4 of the Limitations
Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). &nbsp;The lawyers dutifully complied with the
court’s order.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background facts<o:p></o:p>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On
26 July 2017, by writ of summons, plaintiff commenced this action per her
lawful attorney<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Marian%20Asso%20Amedidji%20v%20Rev%20Father%20Ampim%20Tetteh%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> against
defendant for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for the recovery of the sum of £15,892.00 paid by Plaintiff to Defendant
for the purchase of land and building thereon which Defendant failed to honour
and the repayment of which Defendant has failed to make good despite several
demands.<o:p></o:p>b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest
on the sum of £15,892.00 from August, 1989 till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>c&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>d&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs including lawyers’ fees.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
brief facts of the case is that, plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Sweden.
Defendant is a retired priest of the Anglican Church, Accra, and the maternal
uncle of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim is that during one of her visits back
home in Ghana in 1989, and following defendant promise to assist her purchase
land to develop, she made payments to plaintiff first in 1989, and further between
1990-1995 a total sum of £15,892 for purposes of the purchase and development
of the land. According to plaintiff, on her final &nbsp;return back home in Ghana in 27 May 2017 after
a decade of protracted and interminable ill-health in Sweden, she found out
that defendant has not purchased any land to develop despite his assuring
promises of having not only purchased land but also developed it. Plaintiff cited
defendant for fraud for presenting to her in 2</main>