BRIGHT-DAVIS v. SAGOE

JUDGMENT OF OFORI-BOATENG J.A.

This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, Accra presided over by Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was).

The facts of the case are that the ex-husband of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) built a house on a piece of land over which litigation arose between him and the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), A. L. Bright-Davis, regarding its ownership. While the litigation was going on, the respondent's ex-husband made a gift of the house on the land in dispute to the respondent. The appellant won the case. The respondent in the meantime had moved into the house and started negotiating with the appellant to sell her the land. She also agreed to pay off the costs awarded the appellant by the court which the respondent's husband appeared to have been unable to pay. All these negotiations were conducted through the solicitors of the parties and it would appear the two parties never met face to face. After some negotiations over the price, which appears to be the joint price of the land and the building, it was agreed that the respondent should pay ¢15,000. This deal was clinched on 18 October 1977.

The respondent through her solicitor had in the meantime informed the appellant that she was arranging to pay for the ¢15,000 through an overdraft from her bank. By the way, the respondent is also a business woman, a contractor, and so perhaps arranging for an overdraft from a bank would pose no unusual problem.

Before the loan could be paid the appellant unilaterally withdrew the offer which had in fact been accepted and so had become a full contract in law. The respondent ignored that withdrawal and on 18 February 1978 her solicitor addressed a letter to the appellant's solicitor in which he enclosed a cheque for the sum of ¢15,000 and an indenture for signature and return.

Unfortunately this cheque was not honoured. The appellant did not inform the respondent of this disaster until 22 March 1978 when the respondent inquired through her solicitor about the signing of the indenture attached to the cheque. As soon as the respondent became aware of the bouncing of her cheque she immediately offered ¢15,000 cash which the appellant refused. Then the appellant gave notice to the respondent to quit the house after he had refused the ¢15,000 cash she offered. The respondent refused to quit and sued successfully in the High Court for specific performance; hence this appeal.