ARCHIBOLD ATTO PAITOO VS K.A. ESTATES LTD. & ANOR
May 7, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
May 7, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana High Court, Justice Sheila Minta resolved a dispute between Mr. Archibold Ato Paitoo and K. A. Estates Limited, led by its Managing Director, Mr. Stephen Kofi Adjei, over a failed purchase of Flat A3 at House No. B149/10, North Kaneshie. The parties initially executed a November 2015 MOU and a lease for a US$210,000 sale structured through vehicle transfers worth US$90,000 and a US$120,000 cheque, later adding a Nissan Navara valued US$20,000. After Paitoo questioned title and stopped the cheque, the defendants’ letter of 13 July 2017 accepted his decision not to continue and acknowledged US$110,000 received, proposing a six‑month refund and referencing a BMW top‑up. The court held that this subsequent refund agreement supplanted the original lease sale, ordered a refund of US$110,000 with 4% interest from January 2018, found Paitoo not in possession, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim for specific performance. Costs were declined given the parties’ prior friendship.
William Shakespeare’s quote about betrayal from Cymbeline: “Though those that are betray’d do feel the treason sharply, yet the traitor stands in worse case of woe. ”INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant are friends or used to be friends “helping each other out” in the past and the 2nd Defendant is the Managing Director and Shareholder of the 1st Defendant Company.
The Plaintiff’s case is that he has had to call off the Sale and Purchase Agreement between the parties in respect of an apartment and therefore seeks a refund of all the moneys admittedly accepted by the Defendants.
The Defendants on the other hand averred that the property subject of this dispute is still available to the Plaintiff and the contract for the sale of same is subsisting and counterclaimed for specific performance and the recovery of outstanding balance owed by the Plaintiff.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE The Plaintiff’s case briefly is that sometime in June 2015 he entered into some negotiations with the Defendants for the purchase of an apartment described as Flat A3, H/No. B149/10 North Kaneshie for residential purposes.
According to the Plaintiff, the contract sum was US$210, 000. 00 and as part of the negotiations the parties agreed that the Plaintiff could pay for the said apartment by transferring ownership of his two cars valued at US$90, 000. 00 (Ninety Thousand Dollars) to the 2nd Defendant and also wrote a cheque for the sum of US$120, 000. 00 to cover the balance for the apartment.
The Plaintiff averred that pursuant to the said understanding, the Plaintiff transferred the cars into the name of the 2nd Defendant.
The Plaintiff posited that he subsequently discovered that the said property was not secured in title in the manner he was made to believe so he had to call off the cheques and abrogated the agreement between the parties.
The Plaintiff again stated that in another transaction the 2nd Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s Nissan Navara Pickup for a funeral and they later negotiated that same be sold and transferred to Defendants by Plaintiff for US$20, 000. 00. Plaintiff further stated that having called off the sale, he wrote a letter to the Defendants on 19th June, 2017 terminating the transaction and made a demand for the US$110, 000. 00 being the values of the cars sold to the Defendants.
In his testimony he said he had given the Lease Agreement back to the Defendants.
Plaintiff’s story is that the Defendants have acknowledged the debt of Plaintif