DANIEL OWUSU DANSO VS NII OSHIU DADE IV
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant to enforce the transfer of a property after paying GH¢65,000 for its purchase and document preparation. The defendant contended that the transaction pertained to a different property and failed to deliver the relevant documents or possession. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found the plaintiff's claims valid, held that the payments were for the Aplaku property, and concluded that the plaintiff had not backed out of the contract. The court awarded a refund of GH¢65,000 with interest to the plaintiff and imposed a cost of GH¢5,000 against the defendant.
Plaintiff’s Case By a writ of summons issued on 5th October 2017, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant: i. An order of court against the defendant to prepare documents covering the land for him.
An order of court directed against the defendant to give vacant possession and for ejectment.
It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant agreed to transfer his uncompleted house together with the land thereon to him at a consideration of GH¢50, 000. 00. The plaintiff asserts that he paid the said amount to the defendant and the defendant duly acknowledged the payment and made a statutory declaration confirming the transfer of the property to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant took an additional amount of GH¢15, 000. 00 for the preparation of documents covering the property.
The defendant however failed to hand over the documents covering the property to the plaintiff and he also failed to give vacant possession to the plaintiff and this necessitated the plaintiff instituting this action.
Defendant’s Case In a statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendant on 3rd November 2017, the defendant admitted the fact that he entered into negotiations with the plaintiff with respect to the plaintiff purchasing his property situate at Aplaku.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was given documents evidencing the grant and the parties duly executed a sale and purchase agreement.
The plaintiff later refused to take physical possession of the property because a road that had been constructed had eaten into portions of the frontage of the property thereby reducing the size of the land.
The defendant further asserts that the parties later agreed that the plaintiff will be given the defendant’s property situate at Olebu and the amount that the plaintiff paid will be used to offset the cost of the Olebu property.
It is therefore the defendant’s case that the plaintiff has resiled from the contract in respect of the Aplaku property and the only relationship between the parties now is in respect of the Olebu property.
All payments made by the plaintiff are in respect of the Olebu property, which property the plaintiff has not completed paying for.
The defendant therefore asserts that the plaintiff’s action which is based on the Aplaku property is not maintainable and the same ought to be dismissed.
Issues for trial At the close of pleadings, the following issues were set down as the issues for the trial of th