April 21, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Adinyira JSC, dismissed the Plaintiffs appeal from a Court of Appeal decision that had set aside a High Court judgment concerning SG SSB Banks sale of House No. Plot 642, East Legon. The Plaintiff, identified in the record as Mr. Don Ackah, claimed an agreement with Bertha Badoe, Managing Director of Pergah Transport Ltd, to buy the house in Pergahs name to boost its assets for a Ghana Commercial Bank bid, with a later transfer to him. The Court held the Plaintiff failed to discharge his burden of proof, notably by not calling the Banks former Managing Director, Mr. P.K. Thompson, a material witness central to the narrative. The written sale agreement did not record any interest of the Plaintiff, and parol evidence could not vary its terms. Affirming the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court varied consequential orders: the GH20,000 loan-funded down payment must be refunded on the Unique Trust loan terms, additional simple interest applies, a lien is granted to the Plaintiff, and the Bank must refund GH13,000. No costs were ordered.
J U D G M E N T
ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court Appeal dated 13 December 2007, which subject to certain orders set aside the judgment of the High Court Accra dated 12 April 2O06.
FACTS
In 1999, the SG SSB Bank Ltd, the 3rd Defendant herein offered its property House No. Plot 642 East Legon, Accra, for sale. The area of contention throughout the trial on the part of the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter Plaintiff) was that the then Managing Director of the Bank, Mr. P.K. Thompson informed him of the intention of the Bank to sell the house. He was initially not interested and later decided to buy the house after private discussions with Mr. Thompson. The latter introduced him to Bertha Badoe, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter 2nd Defendant) the Managing Director of Pergah Transport Ltd the 1st Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter 1st defendant), who was then living in the house as his licensee. A friendship developed between the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant and they mutually agreed that the Plaintiff will purchase the house in the name of the 1st Defendant in order to boost its assets base to meet the terms and conditions of a bid put out by the Ghana Commercial Bank. It was also agreed that after the 1st Defendant has won the bid, the house will be transferred to the Plaintiff.
The case of the 1st and 2nd Defendants was that, they made an offer to the Bank to purchase the house. While the 2nd Defendant was waiting for funding from her brother in Canada, the Plaintiff offered financial assistance to them to enable them to purchase the house as he did not want one other person who has expressed interest in the house to buy it. The Defendants claimed further that there was no agreement that the house was to be transferred to the Plaintiff after they won a bid from the Ghana Commercial Bank.
The High Court found the version of the Plaintiff to be more credible and gave judgment in his favour. The 1st and 2nd Defendants appealed against the judgment on the sole ground that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the High Court. It however ordered the 1st and 2nd Defendants to refund to the Plaintiff the sum of GH¢20,000 with interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate to be calculated at simple interest from 24 November 1999 to date of judgment.
The Plaintiff is now inviting this Court to restore the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that:
The judgmen