JULIET ISSAH vs DANIEL NII OTOO
April 8, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
April 8, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Juliet Issah entered a joint venture with Daniel Nii Otoo Annan to operate the Otublohum Lodge. Their written agreement provided that Issah would invest in renovations and manage the lodge, with profits shared 40/60 in Annan’s favour. Issah produced their contract (Exhibit A) and receipts and a municipal permit (Exhibit B), showing expenditure and lawful steps to operate. Annan, though filing a defence and expansive counterclaim alleging illegal operations and failures, never appeared, filed no witness statement, and offered no evidence or cross-examination. The High Court found Annan breached the agreement by taking over operations and refusing to share profits, accepted Issah’s expenditures on a preponderance of probabilities, awarded her GH 5,500 with interest, GH 20,000 general (expectation) damages, costs of GH 5,000, and dismissed Annan’s counterclaim.
Plaintiff’s Case By a writ of summons issued on 6th January 2011, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant:
i. A declaration that by the agreement between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff is entitled to operate the defendant’s hotel on a 40/60 percentage sharing basis.
ii. An order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s running of the hotel.
Alternatively
iii. Payment of the sum of GH₵5, 500. 00 as expenditure made on the hotel.
iv. GH₵20, 000. 00 as damages for breach of contract.
It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant built a house which he intended to use as a hotel but he did not have the money to do so.
Through a friend, she got to know the defendant who shared his plans with her and after discussions, she agreed to enter into a joint venture agreement with the defendant for the running of the hotel.
By the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to use her money to renovate the house and fix all the items needed for the running of a hotel.
The plaintiff was then to operate the hotel and the profit from the running of the hotel was to be shared between the plaintiff and the defendant in the ratio of 40% to 60%. It is the plaintiff’s case that based on the agreement, she expended her money in converting the house into the hotel as agreed and she commenced operating the hotel.
The defendant however refused to share the profit from the proceeds of running the hotel with her but rather picked quarrels with the plaintiff whenever she demanded her due share.
The defendant eventually stopped her from coming to the hotel on the pretext that he could no longer work with her.
It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant just used her to get his hotel in operation and he is refusing to pay her back her money or compensate her.
The plaintiff therefore prays the court for the grant of her reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
Defendant’s defence and counterclaim The defendant duly entered appearance and filed a defence in which he denied all the plaintiff’s claims and the averments in the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
The defendant admitted that the parties agreed to enter into a joint venture agreement but he claims that the terms of the agreement were misrepresented by the plaintiff as there were other terms that were orally agreed upon in the presence of witnesses, which when fulfilled, would have entitled the plaintiff to 40% of the earnings from the hotel.
The sai