balfour associates inc. v. fos aluminium co. ltd accra and frederick ofosu saforo
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- gyaesayor, ja (presiding)
- larbi (mrs). ja
- agyemang (mrs.) ja
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a High Court decision that refused to set aside or vary a reserved price for a property sale. The appellant argued that a new valuation report by AESL showed the property was grossly undervalued in the initial report. The respondent did not contest the appeal and agreed to the new valuation. The Court of Appeal, acting as a rehearing court, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's ruling, and fixed the reserved price at GH¢9,600,396.00 as per the AESL forced sale value. The court emphasized its power to make orders that the lower court should have made and noted that when parties are in agreement, it is unnecessary to adjourn for later judgment. The appeal was granted as uncontested, with no order as to costs.
GYAESAYOR, JA This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Commercial Division Accra dated 31st July 2014 which refused to set aside or vary the reserved price initially fixed by the court.
It is the case of defendant/appellant that a second valuation report issued by AESL shows that the initial report grossly undervalued the property to be sold at ridiculously low price.
While AESL put the market value at GH¢13,705,626.00 and the force sale value at GH¢9,600,396.00 the valuation report submitted by the plaintiff respondent fixed the market value at Five Million and Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred Ghana cedis only (GH¢5,085,200.00). The same report fixed the force sale value at Three Million Four Hundred and Forty-five Thousand Six Hundred Ghana cedis only (Gh¢3,445,600.00). An attempt to have the said first valuation order set aside was refused by the court in the ruling dated 31st July 2014 primarily because the appellant failed to appear in court on 19th May, 2014 to inform the court about the fate of the request to AESL to conduct a valuation report and report to court on 23rd June 2014.
Parties have duly filed their respective submissions in this court.
The defendant/appellant in the submission filed advanced arguments in support of its appeal and asked this court to vary the reserved price accordingly.
Fortunately, the respondent in the written submission filed on 26th October 2015 was categorical that they did not intend to contest the appeal.
Indeed the respondent wrote “my lords, the respondent does not contest the appeal.
Soon after the appeal was filed the respondent/approached the appellants to consider the withdrawal of the appeal to enable the parties to go back to the lower court for the endorsement of the AESL values without success.
In the process I pray that the appeal is allowed and pray for a further order that the execution proceed at the AESL forced sale value of Gh¢9,600,396.00”. This obviously means that the plaintiff/respondent is in total agreement with the defendant/appellants in this appeal.
It is our view that since the parties are ad idem, it will be wasteful to adjourn for the judgment to be delivered later.
Since the appeal stands uncontested we shall accordingly grant the appeal and set aside the ruling of the high court dated 31st July 2014.
This court is a rehearing court under Rule 8(1) of C.I.19 and we have the power under rule 32 to make orders which the lower court should have made.
An orde