DON ACKAH v. PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD. & 2 OTHERS

MARFUL-SAU J.A.

The fundamental issue raised in this appeal for determination is who owns house no. plot 642 East Legon Accra.

Is it owned by the Respondent herein or the1st Appellant? From the record of appeal the facts of the case simply are as follows: - SG.SSB Bank Ltd. who were the 3rd Defendants in the trial offered to sell house No.Plot 642, East Legon Accra.

The house was at the time occupied by the 2nd Appellant herein.

The purchase price of the house was fixed at ¢330,000,000.00.

This transaction was in year 1999.

The Respondent herein arranged for a loan of ¢200,000,000.00 from Unique Trust Financial Services for the 1st Appellant, which amount was paid to SG SSB Bank Ltd. by 1st Appellant as part payment of the purchased price.

After about four (4) years, the balance of ¢130,000,000.00 was paid by the Respondent again on behalf of the 1st Appellant.

Meanwhile the 1st Appellant unknown to the Respondent also issued two cheques in the sums of ¢60,000,000.00 and ¢70,000,000.00 to pay off the outstanding purchase price of ¢130,000,000.00.

The SG SSB Bank Ltd. was to deposit the title deeds on the house in dispute with the Unique Trust Financial Services after full payment of the ¢330,000,000.00 but from the record of appeal this was not done, due to the delay in the payment of the ¢130,000,000.00 balance.

The contest in this case however is not as to who paid what and on whose behalf.

The bone of contention relates to the claim by the Respondent that the offer for the sale of the said house was made to him and he agreed with the 2nd Appellant that he will purchase the house in the name of the 1st Appellant, to enable the 1st Appellant boost it corporate profile and afterwards transferred to the Respondent.

This claim by the Respondent was disputed fiercely by the 2nd Appellant who denies ever agreeing with Respondent to pay for the house in the name of the 1st Appellant and ownership later transferred to the Respondent.

According to the 2nd Appellant the offer was made to her and she only sought financial assistance from the Respondent who offered to help 2nd Appellant pay for the house.

The dispute came to a head, when the Respondent requested the 2nd Appellant to vacate the premises.

Upon her refusal, the Respondent took a team of workmen to dismantle portions of the house, an act that resulted in the arrest of the Respondent by the police.

Following the police arrest the Respondent commenced this action with a writ, by which he c