JOHN ADU v. CHARLES KWADWO KORANKYI & ANOTHER

JUDGMENT

On the 3rd of July, 2015 the Plaintiff instituted an action against the 1stand 2ndDefendants jointly and several for the following relief:

“The recovery of 30% of the said project or in alternative an Order to enforce the Agreement between the Parties.”

The plaintiff’s case is that he is a building contractor and sometime in 2007, he entered into an agreement with one Opanin Kwame Mpianin to demolish his family house and rebuild it into stores. In furtherance of the said agreement and in his quest to raise funds to finance the project, it is the

plaintiff’s case that he contacted the 2nd defendant who agreed to partner him to execute the project. The plaintiff stated that he agreed with the 2nd defendant that he shall be entitled to 30% of all the proceeds that would be realized upon completion of the project. In sum, the plaintiff’s case is that the defendants have reneged on their promise relating to his entitlement of the proceed of the project and that has led to the instant action.

The defendants’ case is that there is no partnership agreement between them and the plaintiff. It is also their case that they personally entered into contract with the said Opanin Kwame Mpianin and his family in relation to the project. They aver that the plaintiff is not entitled to his claim and that all he is entitled to is an agency fee of GHC 2,500.00. After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, the following issues were set down for trial namely:

(a) Whether or not the Defendants agreed to give (30%) of the proceeds realized from the project undertaken by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff.

(b) Whether or not the parties agreed that the Plaintiff was entitled to (10%) commission on the total sum of (GHC2,500.00) to be paid by the 1st Defendant to Kwame Mpianim and members of his family.

(c) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the stores/flats constructed by the 1st Defendant.

(d) Whether or not the Plaintiff made any financial contribution towards the construction of the stores/flats.

(e) Whether or not there is any oral agreement between the parties.

(f) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim against the defendants.

The crux of the case is that the plaintiff is demanding 30% of the proceeds from the construction of stores at House Number 33, Dr Mensah, Kumasi in line with the purported partnership agreement between him and the defendants.

To succeed in his claim, the plaintiff is required to prove his case to the re