FRANCIS VIDAL LARYEA VS FINALI VENTURES LIMITED
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB MS.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
After a 18 December 2023 High Court judgment arising from a 1998 sublease for a 0.46-acre parcel in Accras Airport Hills, the defendant limited liability company filed an appeal and sought a stay of execution. The plaintiff, an accountant residing in the United Kingdom, admitted breaching covenants to pay outgoings but said he needed a proper assessment of his total indebtedness; the court ordered the company to provide that assessment within three months and directed access two weeks after payment. In this stay application, the High Court analyzed Order 43 rule 11 of C.I. 47 and Supreme Court guidance on stays, held the application was not premature and that the judgment had executable consequences, but found the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, hardship, or that refusal would render the appeal nugatory. The court refused the stay and awarded costs of GHS 3,000 against the company.
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