AMOAKO BLANKSON v. NANA BONSU
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)
- TORKORNOO J. A.
- DOMAKYAAREH J. A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Equity and Trusts
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a tradesman, sued after his partially paid-for shop was reallocated by the Respondent. The trial court dismissed his claims. On appeal, it was found that the Plaintiff had established a proprietary interest through expenditure, warranting a declaration of ownership, damages for trespass, and a perpetual injunction against the Respondents.
JUDGEMENT
TORKORNOO, J. A:
The Plaintiff/Appellant is one of several artisans and tradesmen who were plying their trade on the fringes of the St Joseph Roman Catholic Junior Secondary School compound in Suame, Kumasi, a place well known for industrial activity. With time, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly and the Parents Teacher Association of the school complained about the effect of commercial activity on the safety and security of the children.
According to the Appellant’s case, the tradesmen formed a ‘loose union’ with himself as chairman and the first Defendant/Respondent as secretary. They petitioned the Assembly and the school not to be removed from the grounds of the school. In 1998, they entered into an agreement with the school which allowed them to build permanent trading places around the school. They were first to build a wall around the school. Each tradesman was allocated the space behind the part of the wall where they plied their business in a makeshift manner before the decision to build the wall. It was agreed that each tradesman would build his permanent shop on this space behind the wall. In his pleadings and evidence, the Appellant urged that the space allocated to him which was where he had plied his trade previously was numbered as Store No. 11. By the end of the trial, it was identified as Store No. 12.
It was the case of the Appellant that in order to ensure uniformity of the store structures, the 1st Respondent was engaged by the Association/Union to construct the shops for everyone. Each of the tradesmen was required to pay the 1st Respondent Gh¢900 as consideration for the construction of their particular shop. It was also the uncontested case of the Appellant, supported by exhibits, that between January 1999 and December 1999, the Appellant had paid Gh¢400 leaving a balance of Gh¢500 to be paid for the construction of the store. According to the Appellant, when he tried to tender the remaining Gh¢500 to the 1st Respondent in December 1999, the 1st Respondent refused to accept same. His position was that he had reallocated the shop to another tradesman on account of the Appellant’s failure to complete the payment early.
The Appellant registered his protest to this position in several ways and after various altercations that run through police stations and courts, the Appellant commenced this suit. In his last amended Writ of Summons, the Appellant claimed for
a. A declaration that he being the original allotttee of the lan