2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant and respondent, uterine brothers, disputed the ownership of Seico Auto Parts and several properties. The respondent claimed he curtailed his schooling at the appellant's behest to help with the business, asserting joint ownership. The appellant denied this, claiming sole establishment and ownership. Both the Trial High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled in the respondent's favor. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the respondent had not sufficiently proven his claims of joint ownership or material contribution to the business. The Court of Appeal's earlier decisions were reversed, granting the appellant's counterclaim and ordering the respondent to vacate the contested property.
APPAU, JSC:
The appellant herein was the defendant in the trial High Court while the respondent was the plaintiff. They were uterine brothers; appellant being the elder of the two. In this judgment, they would be referred to simply as appellant and respondent respectively.
By a writ of summons filed in the High Court on 18th November 2002, the respondent claimed the following reliefs against the appellant:
a. Declaration of title to the new Russia and Larteh properties jointly acquired by both parties;
b. Declaration of title to two (2) Bedford trucks, one Toyota corolla taxi, one V.W. Beetle and two (2) air-conditioners jointly acquired by both parties;
c. An order of accounts into the business called Seico Auto Parts jointly run by both parties from 1985 to 1993;
d. An order for the respondent to be given his just share in profits jointly acquired by the two parties including the house at Russia and land at Larteh;
e. An order for accounts in the running of the two (2) Bedford trucks and one (1) taxi;
f. Compensation for not being able to complete his school as a result of appellant’s persuasion;
g. Perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from harassing respondent and his family in the Russia house; and
h. Any other order that the trial court deemed fit to make.
Respondent’s case
The respondent’s case in brief was that in the year 1983 while he was a second-year student at Accra Polytechnic, the appellant who was his elder brother, persuaded him to curtail his schooling and to assist him operate a spare-parts business which he (appellant) had established. Before he stopped schooling, he was staying with their eldest brother called Paul Osei Kumi who was then a tutor at Accra Academy. The appellant too was staying in rented premises with his family. During holidays, he would move to the appellant’s shop to assist him. He finally truncated his schooling and joined the appellant to run the business, which appellant started on a table top with the understanding that the business would ultimately belong to the two of them. Later, through his instrumentality, the business was registered in 1985 as an enterprise with the name ‘Seico Auto Parts’. Again, they managed to secure a loan from the National Investment Bank with the help of his father in-law who was then a manager at the National Investment Bank to revamp the business.
He claimed further that through their joint efforts, they built the business into a successful business enterprise.