DR. HENRY AGYEMAN PREMPEH VS METROPOLIS DEVELOPMENT LTD
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- JANAPARE BARTELS-KODWO JA (PRESIDING)
- NOVISI ARYENE JA
- EMMANUEL ANKAMAH JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal case arose from a High Court ruling related to a contract for the purchase of a condominium. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision, arguing errors in the ruling on refund claims, special damages for lost rent, and assessment of general damages and costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on most grounds, but increased the awarded costs from GH¢10,000 to GH¢20,000, affirming that all other claims were unsupported by sufficient evidence or legal principles.
NOVISI ARYENE JA:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (Commercial Division) dated 14th December 2017, by which decision the plaintiff (the appellant herein) obtained part judgment for reliefs endorsed on the amended writ of summons. Dissatisfied with the decision, plaintiff is before us praying for an order to set aside the entire judgment and for all the reliefs endorsed on the amended writ of summons to be granted.
In this appeal, the parties shall be referred to by the designations used in the court below.
FACTS
By an Agreement dated 10th of June 2010, plaintiff purchased a yet to be constructed 3 bedroom apartment at defendant’s Villagio Vista Condominium located at the Airport Residential Area Accra, for US$585,000. Per the terms of the Agreement, defendant was to build in accordance with the layout chosen by plaintiff. Out of the different apartment layouts presented for his consideration, plaintiff says he chose a layout with 3 large bedrooms including a master bedroom with three patios, on the 8th floor with the intention of taking advantage of the panoramic view of the area.
Plaintiff contends that relying on detailed information on the dimensions of the rooms, schematic drawings and floor plans of the apartment presented to him by defendant, he executed the contract and paid the contract sum.
It was a term in the Agreement that a purchaser could only assess the apartment after full payment had been made and the handing over certificate, signed. Plaintiff avers that after signing the handing over certificate, he took possession of the apartment on 10th August 2010 only to discover that the layout of the property was different from what he had chosen. The apartment had only two balconies/patios instead of the agreed three. Two of the bedrooms including the master bedroom, were smaller in size and the master bedroom had no patio.
Plaintiff says he immediately notified defendant of his displeasure and demanded compensation. Although defendant admitted that they had not met the specifications and proposed to build a patio for the master bedroom, plaintiff says he turned down the offer because the construction would further reduce the size of the master bedroom.
It is the case of plaintiff that to the knowledge of defendant, he intended renting out the apartment at $6,000 per month, however without a patio attached to the master bedroom the property could not attract the expected rent. Plaintiff says that he was only able t