CYRIL ROBERT HALM VS MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD. & ANOR

DARKO ASARE JSC:

1. My Lords, this is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal in an action brought by the Respondent, against the Appellant, for remuneration for services in connection with his trade as an estate agent.

The Court of Appeal had affirmed the findings and conclusions by the trial court which made an award of 5% commission in the Respondent’s favour.

This followed what was determined by the Court to be a successful brokerage of a transaction that concluded with the Appellant’s purchase of the land in question at a price of USD$2. 5m.

2. The facts germane to this appeal have been adequately set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and we would only highlight the salient points necessary for the determination of the issues raised in this appeal.

3. The Respondent at all material times was an estate agent, whilst the Appellant, was a limited liability company, engaged in the business of providing multi-channel pay television platforms to its subscribers.

According to the Respondent he was approached by Officials from the Appellant company sometime in July 2012, who were desirous of engaging his services to assist the Appellant acquire land along the N1 Ablemkpe Interchange for purposes of constructing Appellant’s office premises.

4. Before the trial court, the Respondent asserted that through his diligent efforts, he succeeded in identifying a suitable land at the Abelempke Interchange suitable for the Appellant’s purposes.

After conducting an official search to satisfy himself that the land was not emcumbered, he prepared a site plan on the land for the Appellant.

Following the Appellant’s confirmation that it was interested in acquiring the land in question, the Parties settled on an agreed commission.

Thereafter the Respondent arranged a meeting with the owner of the land, the 2nd Defendant in the suit, who agreed, after negotiations, to sell the land at USD$3m and further agreed to pay Respondent a commission of 5%of the purchase price.

According to the Respondent, he subsequently handed over the 2nd Defendant’s telephone number to the Appellant’s General Manager to enable one Yaw Boakye who knew the 2nd Defendant very well, to intervene in the transaction and convince the 2nd Defendant to reduce the purchase price of the land.

Respondent claimed that even though he did not have a written contract with the Appellant he gave out the number out of good faith, and this enabled the said Yaw Boakye to negotiate with