DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.), JA:
[1] We have before the court, an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Commercial Division, Kumasi dated 24th January, 2019. The Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted the action at the trial Court on 30th May 2017 against the Defendant/Appellant herein, claiming the following reliefs:
a. Recovery of the land as well as the building thereon known as House No. Block 39, Plot 1, Ahodwo – Kumasi
b. An order from the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to render accounts on the said property
c. General damages for breach of the Agreement between the parties and the lease Agreement of 18th August,1999
d. Costs including lawyer’s fees.
Facts:
[2] In the Statement of Claim accompanying the Writ of Summons, the Plaintiffs/Respondents averred that they were beneficial interest owners of the property known as House No. Block 39, Plot 1, Ahodwo, Kumasi while the Defendant/Appellant is a Contractor based in Kumasi. The Plaintiffs/Respondents averred that they entered into an Agreement with the Defendant/Appellant dated 18th August, 1999 for the development of the undeveloped part of Block 39, Plot 1, Ahodwo, Kumasi for a period of thirty-five (35) years and after the expiration of the said term, to hand over the property to the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Other terms of the Agreement were that the Defendant/Appellant was to build a two-storey building including a basement within two years of the signing of the Agreement; that after the completion of the ground floor, the Defendant/Appellant was to use the proceeds received from renting out the stores he built thereon to sponsor and facilitate the travel of two (2) members of the Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ family abroad to either Europe, United States of America or the United Kingdom.
[3] The Plaintiffs/Respondents further averred that the Defendant/Appellant completed the construction of the ground floor stores which houses five (5) stores as far back as 2001 but has refused to sponsor any member of the Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ family abroad contrary to the Agreement. The Plaintiffs/Respondents also averred that despite repeated demands and reminders, the Defendant/Appellant refused to fulfil his part of the Agreement and has also refused to compensate them in any manner, monetary or at all for the use and occupation of their land. It is the case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents that since 2001, the Defendant/Appellant has been renting out the stores to various tenants and enjoyin