1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed a case concerning the interpretation and validity of a 'Deed of Gift' that purportedly conveyed property rights. The case was initiated by originating summons, which was found inappropriate due to substantial disputed facts. The deed was deemed inoperative as it lacked essential legal terms. Requests for estoppel and rectification were denied. The Court of Appeal's decision was overturned, and the Supreme Court held that a full trial was required to resolve the factual disputes.
C. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, J.S.C.:
In this appeal the Respondent shall be known as the Plaintiff and the Appellant, the Defendant. In the appeal before us the Defendant attacks the judgment of the Court of Appeal as rendered by the majority of their Lordships, invites us to uphold the opinion of the minority and prays for
"the reversal of the Appeal Court decision and the construction of the Deed to reflect a rectification in accordance with clause 3 thereof with costs in favour of Defendant/Appellant.”
The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings by an Originating Summons wherein he claimed
“to be (b) interested as a party thereto in the time construction of a document dated 29th July, 1993 entitled “Deed of Gift” for the determination of the following question: (c) whether or not a certain document entitled “Deed of Gift” dated the 29th July, 1993 and executed by Plaintiff and Defendant confers any title or interest whatsoever on Defendant or on any of her five children by Plaintiff to or in the land and premises above-mentioned or any part thereof numbered 270/6 BLK. E3, North Teshie, Accra . . . .”
It is difficult to appreciate what “interest” the Plaintiff was claiming by that question. If I
understand the question the Plaintiff was requesting the Court to determine the interest the Defendant had in the property. Nor were the Plaintiff’s five children by the Defendant parties to the originating summons. How they were to be bound by any decision of the Court the Plaintiff did not so indicate. But he accompanied his originating summons with an affidavit in which he averred that the alleged Deed of Gift was prepared on the instructions of the Defendant and he (Plaintiff) signed the document at her request: That he did not have independent legal advice but dealt which the Solicitor instructed by the Defendant: That the “Deed of Gift” did not contain any "operative words of grant" and no “habendum clause”: That paragraph 3 of the Exhibit G.C.B.A.1 was completely false and wholly untrue. In an unusual conclusion to any affidavit in support of an originating summons the Plaintiff prayed for
“ . . . . a true construction of the said Deed Exhibit G.B.D.A.1 and for an answer to the question whether or not it confers any title, right, interest or claim whatsoever to the land therein mentioned to; in or upon Defendant or any of her five children by me therein mentioned.”
It will be useful at this stage to set down the paragraph 3 of the Exhibit referred to above.