DEEPER CHRISTIAN LIFE MINISTRY vs. LANDLINE PROPERTIES (GH) LTD. [2018]DLHC11571

Date	2018-02-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/217/15
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC11571

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

COUNSEL ABSENT

[2018]DLHC11571
																																						<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" >DEEPER CHRISTIAN LIFE MINISTRY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LANDLINE PROPERTIES (GH) LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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;tab-stops:150.75pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. RPC/217/15&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; DATA: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:125.25pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">COUNSEL ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:171.0pt;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">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;By a
writ filed on the 23rd of day of July, 2015 the Plaintiff seeks the following
reliefs against the Defendant:<o:p></o:p>a)
Recovery of the sum of One Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHȼ171,000.00) being part of consideration
in a contract for the audition of a parcel of land whose foundation the
Defendant has in utter bad faith destroyed by the Defendant’s deceit,
suppression of information, and or misrepresentation of facts to Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>b)
Interest at the prevailing commercial rate from the 8th day of March, 2015 to
date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>c)
Costs.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff’s case as disclosed by the statement of claim is that it is a
religious body incorporated in Ghana as a company limited by guarantee.
Sometime in March 2015, Plaintiff approached the Defendant, also a company
incorporated under the laws of Ghana, expressing interest in the purchase of a
parcel of land from the Defendant. The purpose for which Plaintiff needed this
land was to put up its mission house. This was after the Defendant had
represented to the Plaintiff that it was seised with a vast parcel of land at
Landline Estate, Oshiuman, a suburb of Accra. The Defendant had explained to
the Plaintiff that, the lands available fell into two categories. Those which
were yet to be alienated for the first time and those which had been re-entered
by the Defendant due to the failure of prospective purchasers to pay for them.
The Defendant had further represented to the Plaintiff that the cost of
reentered lands was far lower than the cost first time grants. This was because
unlike those in the former category, lands in the latter were not subject to
litigation or any disputes whatsoever. Given the fact &nbsp;that it considered the need for quiet
enjoyment paramount, Plaintiff says it opted for six (6) plots of &nbsp;the more expensive allegedly un-entered lands.
The agreed cost of this parcel of land was Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven
Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHȼ357,350.00),
out &nbsp;of which Plaintiff made a part
payment of One Hundred and Seventy-one Thousand Ghana Cedis &nbsp;(GHȼ171,000.00)
on the 8th day of March, 2015. The balance outstanding was to be paid within
twelve &nbsp;(12) months thereafter. To the
Plaintiff’s surprise, the Defendant in a follow-up letter dated the 16th
day of March, 2015 sought to unilaterally change the terms initially agreed
upon between the Parties. <o:p></o:p>Again,
contrary to the assurances given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, for which
reason Plaintiff &nbsp;had readily agreed to
purchase the more expensive plots, the Plaintiff was met with adverse claims on
&nbsp;its very first visit to the said land.
The Plaintiff says that owing to the lack of candour exhibited by the &nbsp;Defendant and the clear breach of the terms
upon which the said contract was founded, the Plaintiff, by three (3) separate
letters, informed the Defendant of its decision to rescind the contract and &nbsp;demanded a refund of the deposit of One
Hundred and Seventy-One Thousand Ghana Cedis &nbsp;(GHȼ171,000.00)
paid to Defendant. In response to this demand, the Defendant maintained that
the &nbsp;said refund could only be made upon
resale of the land and that even then, any such refund will be &nbsp;subject to the deduction of certain
administrative charges. Plaintiff maintains that these new conditions
introduced by the Defendant in its said response never formed part of the
initial sale agreement. It &nbsp;contends that
the Defendant, in spite of having destroyed the very foundation of the contract
by its &nbsp;deceit, suppression and
misrepresentation of facts has evinced a clear intention not to refund the
deposit &nbsp;paid by Plaintiff unless
compelled to do so by this Court. Hence the present suit. <o:p></o:p>The
Defendant for its part denies that the Plaintiff is a Ghanaian registered
religious body limited by guarantee and demands that the Plaintiff proves same
strictly. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff expressed interest in
purchasing the land in question after it had conducted its own independent &nbsp;searches and satisfied itself, that the
Defendant had good title to same. It admits to having received an &nbsp;amount of One Hundred and Seventy-one Thousand
Ghana Cedis (GHȼ171,000.00)
as part payment &nbsp;for the said parcel of
land but asserts that it neither deceived, misrepresented nor suppressed any
facts &nbsp;from Plaintiff. The Defendant also
denies unilaterally varying the terms of the agreement. In response &nbsp;to the Plaintiff’s complaint that it was met
with adverse claims on its first visit to the land, it is the &nbsp;Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff knew
or ought to have known that there is no land in Ghana &nbsp;that is 100% free from adverse claims. It
states further that having already incurred costs in the &nbsp;preparation of the necessary transfer
documents in favour of Plaintiff, it could not now be called upon to </main>