DR. SMUEL PENNY SMITH & MADAM AKUA ESSUMANBA v. MADAM ELIZABETH BLANKSON & ORS

AKUFFO, (MS), J.S.C.:

The Appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs), by their writ of summons issued on 9th September 1994, commenced legal action against one Elizabeth Blankson (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Defendant) claiming a number of reliefs which may be summed up as follows:-

1. Declaration of title to certain premises at Lartebiokorshie, Accra, consisting of one uncompleted story building and one completed boys’ quarters (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property’).

2. A declaration that the agreed purchase price for the premises was ¢19,000,000.00 (now GH¢1,900.00) and that full payment thereof has been paid by various instalment payments.

3. A decree of specific performance of the contract of sale already executed or partly performed and an order to the Defendant or the Registrar of the High Court to execute the requisite documents duly conveying the property to the 2nd Plaintiff

4. Payment of accumulated rents and mesne profits by the Defendant to the plaintiffs.

5. Refund of amounts paid as deposit to the Defendant pending the remittance of the purchase price.

6. General damages for breach of contract.

The brief facts in this matter are that the 1st Plaintiff (suing by one Sarah Chinebuah who describes herself as his lawful attorney) is the son of the 2nd Plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff was at all material times normally resident in the United States of America and his declared intention was to purchase the property for the 2nd Plaintiff. Sometime in or about January 1989, the Plaintiffs expressed to the Defendant an interest in purchasing the property and commenced negotiations with her. According to the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, the negotiations resulted in an agreement that the purchase price would be ¢19,000,000.00. According to the Defendant, however, there was a tentatively agreed price of ¢22,000,000.00 (now GH¢2,200.00), the final price being subject to the outcome of a valuation to be conducted. The agreement was never reduced into writing and, whatever the agreed price, the understanding was that the same would be completely paid by May 1989. In April 1989, however, the 1st Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a tape recorded message informing her that, owing to the outbreak of the Gulf War, he was unable to complete the payment of the purchase price as promised and he then put the Defendant to her option of either selling the property to any other person or waiting till the end of the said war when the 1st Pl