DANIEL DARKO OBIRI & ORS VS NII ADJEI KWEI DZAMANSAH III
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE K. A. GYIMAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a retired civil servant, acting on behalf of a Ghanaian couple domiciled in the UK, suing a defendant for selling them land he did not own. The plaintiffs claimed deceit and sought compensation. The defendant didn't appear in court, leading to a judgment favoring the plaintiffs. The court found the defendant breached the contract and awarded the current value of the land to the 1st plaintiff. However, the claim for damages from deceit was denied as the 1st plaintiff did not conduct due diligence prior to the purchase.
Plaintiffs’ Case The 1st plaintiff describes himself as a retired civil servant and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs describe themselves as a Ghanaian couple who are ordinarily domiciled in the United Kingdom and they have appointed the 1st plaintiff as their attorney to institute this action on their behalf.
By a writ of summons issued on 8th June 2017, the plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs against the defendant: i. An order directed against the defendant herein to replace the parcels of land leased to the plaintiffs herein by a lease agreement dated 6th September 2013 executed by the defendant herein in favour of the plaintiffs herein, which said parcels of land are situate at Otinibi, Accra.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ii.
An order directed against the defendant herein in favour of the plaintiffs to pay to the plaintiffs herein the prevailing value of the said two parcels of land.
Damages for deceit.
Costs including legal fees It is the case of the plaintiffs that on or about 6th September 2013, they acquired two separate parcels of land situate at Otinibi, Accra from the defendant for valuable consideration and the acquisition was evidenced by indentures duly executed by the defendant.
They took possession and commenced development on the land but they were confronted by some persons who claimed that the land was for them.
The plaintiffs assert that in order to be sure, they conducted a search at the Lands Commission which revealed that the land the defendant had sold to them did not belong to the defendant but to other families.
It is the plaintiffs’ case that the defendant knew that the land did not belong to him but he represented to them that he was the accredited representative of the owners of the land thereby deceiving the plaintiffs into buying the land from him.
It is the plaintiffs’case that they have suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s action.
The plaintiffs caused their lawyer to write to the defendant on the turn of events but he did not acknowledge the letter, neither did he take any action.
This therefore compelled the plaintiffs to institute the present action claiming the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
Procedural History The defendant was served with the writ of summons and statement of claim by substituted service but he failed to enter appearance or file a defence to defend the action.
All subsequent processes in this action were served on the defendant by substituted service.
On 26th September 2017, th