BEN HAASTRUP QUORNOOH v. BASHIR PATTY

JUDGEMENT

OFOE, J.A:

I have read the appeal records and I don’t think this a case that should give me any labour. I will present the facts of this case in its most sketchy form but ensuring that the essence is not lost on the reader as to what happened in substance between the parties.

The claim the plaintiff is making against the defendant is for a declaration from this court that an agreement of sale made between him and the defendant on the 2nd of May 2012 concerning land noted in Land Title Certificate No. GA34595 has been abrogated or at an end. He is asking for a further order that not only should the defendant surrender the original Land Title Certificate No GA38934 issued in the name of Project and Business Development Center but that the Land Registry should also cancel and delete from its register this Certificate.

Plaintiff is in court because a misunderstanding has arisen between him and the defendant on the sale agreement in respect of a piece of Land within the environs of Osu. There is no dispute on the facts that the plaintiff has property in the environs of Osu registered in his name but the Land Title Certificate on the said land was with a bank as security for a loan he took from the bank. His family friend, the defendant, was to assist him canvass for the sale to interested purchasers to enable him raise money to pay the bank. It was subsequently agreed to sell to the defendant. A sale agreement was entered at a price of GH¢230,000 which was to be paid latest the 30th May 2012. It is not in dispute that the defendant failed to meet this payment deadline and with the indulgence of the plaintiff the payment stood unpaid for some time. Because the defendant was not able to pay the purchase price by this date there was the understanding that the defendant raise an amount of GH¢61,000 to enable the plaintiff pay the bank and retrieve his land document, which in any case will be needed to perfect any sale of this land. This was done and the bank was paid. To enable the defendant apply for the loan it was understood that the property will be turned over into the defendant’s company name which will then use it to take a loan from a bank and pay the plaintiff the purchase price of GH¢230,000 less the GH¢61,000. According to the plaintiff from the time the property was vested in the defendant he has been dodgy, elusive and completely went at large for some time. Eventually the defendant came out on the 11th of October 2012 with an apology off