FRANCIS VIDAL LARYEA VS FINALI VENTURES LIMITED
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB MS.
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, a UK resident, filed a case against the Defendant claiming he couldn't fulfill payment obligations under a sublease and couldn't complete construction on the land due to the Defendant's denial of access. The Court determined that the Plaintiff wasn't made aware of his total indebtedness and found that the Defendant unjustly denied access to the land. The Court ordered the Defendant to disclose the Plaintiff's debts and allow access upon payment. The Defendant's counterclaim to repossess the land was denied as the sublease wasn't properly terminated. The Defendant's request for a stay of execution pending appeal was also subsequently refused.
I. BACKGROUND
1. The Plaintiff an accountant resident in the United Kingdom instituted an action against the Defendant Limited Liability Company by a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 27th October 2015. 2. It was essentially the case of the Plaintiff that he acquired the subject land measuring 0. 46 acres and situate at Airport Hills Residential Area in Accra from the Defendant Company and the transaction is evidenced by a sublease dated 2nd July 1998. 3. The Plaintiff admitted in his Statement of Claim that he is in breach of covenants of the sublease to pay monies/outgoings.
He however added that he is willing and able to perform his obligation to pay the monies he covenanted to pay but he has been unable to do so because the Defendant has refused to inform him of his total indebtedness under the sublease, despite his requests to the Defendant to inform him of his total indebtedness.
The Plaintiff therefore stated that in order to finally and fully discharge his obligations under the sublease, he requires the Defendant to provide him with an updated and exhaustive list of all his outstanding obligations under the sublease.
4. The Plaintiff also stated in his Statement of Claim that he had not been able to complete a three-bedroom structure he had started constructing on the subject land within the two-year period he covenanted he would.
He however added in his Statement of Claim that this was because the Defendant had denied him access to the subject land.
5. By his action, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs: a) A declaration that under the terms of the sublease dated 2nd July 1998 and entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and in all the circumstances set out in the statement of claim the Plaintiff has a right to access his property to complete his three-bedroom building.
b) An order of a mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant to allow the Plaintiff access to his site to enable him complete his three-bedroom building.
c) Costs and such orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit.
6. In a Statement of Defence filed on 11th May 2016, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had failed to remedy breaches under the sublease communicated to him and that it had duly determined the sublease.
The Defendant therefore counterclaimed for a declaration that it is entitled to recover possession as the sublease had been duly determined.
7. The issues set down for determination by the Court differently constituted are stated in pages 4 to 5