April 21, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, per Adinyira JSC, dismissed the Plaintiff e2 80 99s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal e2 80 99s reversal of the High Court e2 80 99s judgment in a dispute over SG SSB Bank Ltd e2 80 99s House No. Plot 642, East Legon. The Plaintiff, linked through Mr. P.K. Thompson to Bertha Badoe of Pergah Transport Ltd, claimed an agreement that the house would be bought in Pergah e2 80 99s name to bolster its balance sheet for a Ghana Commercial Bank bid and then transferred to him. He financed a GH a320,000 deposit via Unique Trust Financial Services Ltd and later paid GH a313,000 to the Bank. The Court held the Plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden, notably by not calling Mr. Thompson to corroborate the alleged agreement; the sale agreement contained no reference to the Plaintiff and privity was conceded. Varying the Court of Appeal e2 80 99s orders, the Supreme Court directed refunds at the loan rate, awarded simple interest at the bank rate where appropriate, recognized unjust enrichment, and imposed an equitable lien until repayment.
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:
A. The judgment is against t