JUDGMENT

GAEWU JSC:

My lords, the core issue in this case on appeal before us for our determination is whether the 2nd defendant/appellant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2nd defendant’) was the bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice of the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff”) equitable interest in all that land situate and being at Bejuahum near Dome, Accra, in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana containing an approximate area of 1.446 acres, which land is particularly described in a deed dated 10th August 1988 made between Madam Felicia Dede Addy and the 1st defendant and registered in the Land Registry as No. 1904/1988. However, before we proceed to deal with this issue, we would like to state briefly the facts leading to this case.

FACTS

On 17th May 2007, the plaintiff, a company registered under the laws of the Republic of Ghana and engaged in the business of busing employees of corporate firms, commenced this action at the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra, against the 1st defendant for the following reliefs:

i. An order of specific performance of the sale agreement executed on 23rd March 2007

ii. Damages for breach of contract in addition to specific performance

iii. Costs.

The 1st defendant caused to be entered on his behalf a Notice of Appearance on 29th May 2007 and a Statement of Defence also filed on 13th June 2007. The plaintiff then filed its reply on 10th July 2007. And in accordance with rule 58(4) of C. I. 47, the case was assigned to a Commercial Court judge to conduct a pretrial settlement conference. At the pretrial conference, it became apparent that the 1st defendant was attempting to transfer the subject land to a third party. The plaintiff therefore brought an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, any third party and the Lands Commission from proceeding to perfect any deed of transfer of the disputed land. The application was granted, and a copy of the restraining order obtained was posted on the disputed property.

As it turned out, the unknown third party was the 2nd defendant who then caused to be filed an application to set aside the order of injunction and for leave to be joined to the action as the 2nd defendant.

The High Court dismissed the 2nd defendant’s application to set aside the interlocutory injunction. However, it granted the joinder and further