JOSEPH KOTEY v. PETER KOFI KOLETEY
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J. A. (PRESIDING)
- TWUMASI J. A.
- ARYEETEY J. A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Customary Law
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This legal case originates from a dispute surrounding the sale of a plot of land. The Plaintiff sought specific performance from the Defendant, who had given possession but refused to execute the indenture. The Defendant counterclaimed for declaration of title, damages for breach of contract and trespass, recovery of possession, and a perpetual injunction. The trial court ordered the Defendant to execute a deed of conveyance but dismissed his counterclaim. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sale did not meet the criteria for a customary sale of land, nor did Exhibit A meet the requirements for a valid contract for the sale of land under common law. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance was dismissed, and the Defendant's counterclaims were largely upheld, including a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and damages for breach of contract and trespass. The judgment highlights essential principles in land sale transactions under both customary and common law, emphasizing the importance of precise contract terms and legal requirements such as registration of documents affecting land.
JUDGMENT
ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.A.
The action which has led to this appeal was commenced on the 8th of January, 1997 at the Circuit Court Odumase Krobo by the plaintiff/respondent before this court (who will be referred to henceforth shortly as the plaintiff) and by his writ of summons he claimed as follows
“........... for specific performance of the agreement for the sale of a plot of land at AHIAWOM at Somanya Zongo opposite to SSNIT office, at Somanya being on area measuring 100 x 100 feet where plaintiff has been moulding cement blocks for sale. Defendant has given possession but refuses to execute an indenture in favour of plaintiff.”
The defendant/appellant before this court (who is henceforth referred to shortly as the defendant) also counter claimed against the plaintiff as follows.
(1) Declaration of title to the land described in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence.
(2) Damages for breach of contract.
(3) Damages for trespass by the plaintiff into the piece of land described in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence.
(4) Recovery of possession.
(5) Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his workman servants assigns and agents from entering or remaining on the said land.
The trial judge gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff declaring inter alia
“I therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant and order the defendant to perform his side of the contract by executing a deed of conveyance covering the disputed land measuring 100 feet by 100 feet and situate at AHIAWON SOMANYA and hand over same to the plaintiff forthwith.”
The trial judge also dismissed the counter-claim. It is against the judgment of the Circuit Court that the defendant now appeals to this court on a number of grounds of which the following are those which are of substance to wit:
(a) The trial circuit judge erred in his failure to realise that the alleged sale of the disputed land was a customary sale and thereby failed to apply the incidents of a customary sale to the transaction between the plaintiff and the Defendant.
(b) The trial circuit judge erred in relying on Exhibit “A” a temporary receipt which does not define the extent and boundaries of the part of the plot and wrongly gave judgment for the plaintiff when the document was also not registered as required by Section 24 of the Land Registry Act, 1962.
(c) The trial judge failed to consider the Defendant's case in particular his counter-claim and dismissed the same without assi