GATEWAY WORSHIP CENTRE v. DAVID SOON BOON SEO

JUDGMENT

AKUFFO, JSC:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 9th December, 2005, which upheld a judgment of the Circuit Court dated 8th December, 2003 in favour of the Respondents herein.

Brief Background

The Appellant is a missionary of Korean nationality and was at all material times resident in the Tema Metropolitan area. The 1st Respondent is the Pastor of the 2nd Respondent, a church located in Tema. According to the Respondents, the Appellant promised to raise funds for the 2nd Respondent whilst on a projected trip to Korea. Prior to his departure, the Appellant, with the members of the church as participants, produced a video film, which depicted members of the church living in the Ashaiman Community in abject poverty and degradation. The purpose of the video was to curry the sympathy of prospective Korean benefactors and foster their generosity. Upon his return from his Korean trip, the Appellant made an open declaration to the church that the said funds had been so raised from a benefactor. The Appellant, however, did not disclose the quantum of the monies he had collected; nor did he hand over any such fund to the respondent church, but retained the same in his own bank account. He then used part of it to acquire the land in dispute herein. Subsequently, the pastor of the church, Ben Adjei, together with the church, acting by its trustees, sued the Appellant in the Circuit Court for a declaration of title to the land in dispute, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction, an order for accounts and other orders. The Circuit Court granted to the Respondents the reliefs claimed, except the one for accounts. The Appellant, thereupon, appealed to the Court of Appeal upon the sole ground that the judgement was against the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court, and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant then appealed to this court upon no less than 8 grounds which for the sake of brevity may be summed up as follows:-

a. Taking into account the claim and evidence in the matter, the 1st Respondent herein had no locus standi in the suit and should have been struck out as a party thereto.

b. Since the reliefs sought by the respondents in their suit against the Appellant ‘involved the application of principles of trusts or equity’, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

c. The claim against the Appellant was a claim by a volunteer to enforce a promise to m