EVA AWADZI VS SOCIAL SECURITY & NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT) & ANOTHER
January 25, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (JA)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
January 25, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns Eva Awadzi, a long-term institutional tenant of SSNIT’s Adenta Housing Flat No. BLK 71 B2 allocated through her employer, the Department of Women/Department of Gender. Facing financial strain while caring for her ill twin sister, she sublet the flat to the 2nd Defendant from July 2011, later extending the tenancy through October 2013. Awadzi alleged that SSNIT had offered institutional/sitting tenants the option to purchase and that her employer accepted on her behalf in May 2011, creating a binding sale agreement. She claimed the 2nd Defendant withheld SSNIT’s final reminder of 18 December 2013 until the deadline and fraudulently colluded with SSNIT to purchase the flat. SSNIT responded that subletting breached the tenancy agreement, any offer required formal steps and payment, and that the sale to the 2nd Defendant followed due process. The court held there was no binding contract between Awadzi and SSNIT, no fraud or collusion was proven, and the sale to the 2nd Defendant was valid. All reliefs were dismissed, with costs awarded against Awadzi.
The Plaintiff, on the 17th day of February 2017 caused a Writ of summons and an accompanying Statement of Claim to be issued against the Defendant asking for the following reliefs:
a) A declaration that the purported sale by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant of the subject property was fraudulent.
b) A declaration that the purported sale of the property to the 2nd Defendant is void by reason of the fraud.
c) An order for rescission of any purported sale to the 2nd Defendant.
d) An order that Plaintiff be restored to the status quo in respect of the property before 2011 when 2nd Defendant entered the property.
e) An order of ejectment against the 2nd Defendant.
f) An order for specific performance against 1st Defendant.
g) An order for recovery of possession of the subject property.
h) An order for payment of mesne profit against 2nd Defendant.
i) An order for recovery of rent amounts from 2nd Defendant at interest which Plaintiff paid from the period when 2nd Defendant ought to have handed over vacant possession.
j) General damages.
k) Punitive damages against the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant respectively.
l) Cost incidental to the suit.
m) Any other relief the court deems fair in the circumstances.
When trial of the suit commenced the Plaintiff called one witness to testify on her behalf and the 1st Defendant on its part called one witness to testify on its behalf.
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
The Plaintiff’s case is that she was an employee of the National Council on Women and Development later came to be known as the Department of Gender which is now the Ministry of Gender and Children Affairs.
That her employer applied to the 1st Defendant to allocate to it five (5) residential accommodation flats to be given to its staff.
The 1st Defendant however allocated only two (2) out of the five (5) residential accommodation requested to the Plaintiff’s employer.
It is the Plaintiff’s case that her Department in turn allocated one of the two flats to her specifically flat no. BLK 71 B2, thus she became a tenant in the property through her Department.
It is Plaintiff’s case that she moved to occupy the flat in May 1995 and lived there until 2008 when she relocated to Osu to join her twin sister who was seriously ill in order to assist her.
Plaintiff aver that between her Department and the 1st Defendant and herself it was agreed that she (Plaintiff) was the tenant and she attorned tenancy to the 1st Defendant.
According to the Plaintiff the