BFT ENTERPRISE v. OBOTANTAM EBU EFFRIM X

MARFUL-SAU, JA:

This appeal is taken from the judgment of the High Court (Commercial Division) dated the 6th of November 2007. The Defendant/Appellant (to be called Appellant) in his Notice of Appeal filed on 28th December 2007 formulated twelve (12) grounds and prayed that the Judgment and orders of the trial court be set aside.

Before I proceed further it is important to set the records straight regarding the grounds argued by learned Counsel for Appellant in his statement of case and the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal. As observed Appellant’s original Notice of Appeal contained twelve (12) grounds. However in his statement of case filed on the 14th July 2009, learned Counsel for the Appellant, argued fourteen grounds praying this court to set aside the judgment of the court below. There is no evidence that Counsel sought the leave of this court to argue the additional two grounds. These two grounds were argued in the statement of case as grounds 12 and 14. When this appeal came up for hearing on 11th of May 2010 learned Counsel for Appellant conceded to the violation of Rule 8 (7) of CI 19 and prayed that the said two grounds be deleted from his statement of case. Accordingly grounds 12 and 14 as argued in the Appellant’s statement of case would be struck out from this appeal. This judgment thus addresses the original grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal.

The facts of the case itself are simple. The Plaintiff/Respondent herein referred to as Respondent acting through its Promoters and Directors negotiated for a parcel of land at Apam from the Appellant for a salt business. Pursuant to the negotiations a parcel of land measuring 40 acres was leased by the Plaintiff at a cost of ¢53 million (GH¢ 5,300). This money was paid in two installments on the 15th November 2004 and on 12th January 2005. On the 28th January 2005, a lease document for the land was executed between the Respondent on one part and the Appellant and his elders on the other part. The Respondent could not register the Lease at the Land Commission, Cape Coast because the land was a subject of another lease dated 25th July 1996 made in favour of a certain Chapermax Salt Limited.

In view of the alleged encumbrance on the land the Respondent commenced this action on the 3rd November 2006. Two reliefs were endorsed on the Respondent’s writ of summons namely;

1. Damages for Deceit

2. Such further or other reliefs as in the circumstances may appear just in particular the ref