June 1, 2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Appau JSC with four other Justices concurring, set aside concurrent High Court and Court of Appeal judgments that had treated the respondent as a co-owner of Seico Auto Parts and as entitled to half of various assets. The parties are uterine brothers. The respondent claimed that, as a second-year Accra Polytechnic student, he quit school at the appellant’s persuasion to help expand the business, secured credit and a National Investment Bank loan, and shared profits and properties including the Russia house. The appellant maintained he founded the business in 1976, registered it as a sole proprietorship, obtained the NIB loan in his own name, provided for the respondent’s family, and documented sole title to the Russia house, with respondent as witness. Examining Exhibit ‘A’, the appellate standards, and the burden of proof, the Court found the respondent’s narrative unsupported and inconsistent with documents. It reversed, granted the appellant’s counterclaim, and ordered the respondent to vacate the Russia house, which devolves to the appellant’s wife and children.
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.