ERIC ANSONG v. MR. ALBERT GORMAN & MRS. GORMAN

ANSAH JSC;

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the trial High Court. The appellants rely on the following grounds of appeal, namely,

“The Court of Appeal erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court because the pleaded contract of sale is inchoate, invalid and unenforceable since the subject matter properly is jointly owned, but the pleaded contract of sale is between respondent on the one hand and 1st Appellant on the other hand only.

The Court of Appeal erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court and dismissing appeal because even if the pleaded contract of sale of the subject-matter property were between respondent and 1st and 2nd Appellants jointly since the parties decided no longer to sell the house rescinded whatever agreement and returned the purported part payment there was no longer a subsisting agreement on which an order of specific performance could be based and there was no circumstances as would have rendered it a fraud for appellants to have rescinded the contract.

The Court of Appeal erred when although it found that the contract of sale herein was in writing and not oral, it went outside the written contract and admitted parol evidence to vary the written contract of sale and rewrote the contact of sale for the parties.

Further grounds of appeal would be filed upon receipt of proceedings.”

The facts of this case are not complicated. The parties a married couple are the joint owners of a house the subject matter of the dispute. The respondent claimed that he entered into negotiations with the appellants for the sale of their house. He further claimed that the terms of the sale were reduced into writing in the form of a receipt issued to him by the 1st appellant, upon the payment of the first instalment of the agreed price. The said receipt was signed by the first appellant only, purportedly on behalf of himself and his wife. The respondent then claimed a few days later after he had paid the final instalment for the house, the 1st appellant brought back the money he had paid and indicated that they were no longer interested in selling the house. Several attempts were made to pay back the money to the respondent to no avail. Eventually, the money was paid back into court. The respondent then brought an action in the High Court seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale of the appellants’ house, recovery of possession of same, general damages and costs. The High