ASARE v. ANTWI

The Court of Appeal, per Anin J.A., allowed J. G. Asare’s appeal against a High Court decree of specific performance and injunction in favour of S. K. Antwi concerning an Adabraka plot. Antwi had sued for enforcement of a purported 1964 sale for ¢2,000, refund of ¢100, damages, and an injunction, relying chiefly on a temporary receipt (Exhibit A) for £G50 and his claim of partial performance. The appellate court held that no binding contract existed: both parties’ evidence showed no agreed purchase price, a material term; Exhibit A omitted the price and indicated a sale still “to be sold”; and no specific plot was identified, making the subject matter uncertain. The alleged agreement was not in writing, contravening section 11 of the Contracts Act, 1960 and the Statute of Frauds, 1677, and the payment of £G50 did not amount to part performance. The court rejected the trial judge’s invocation of customary law, finding the transaction governed by common law and equity and noting the absence of essential customary elements. Citing Bromley v. Jefferies, Douglas v. Baynes, Short v. Morris, and Maddison v. Alderson, the court reversed and allowed the appeal.