KARIYAVOULAS & ANOTHER v. OSEI [
May 6, 1983
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- TWUMASI J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
May 6, 1983
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Twumasi J. resolves a dispute between the administrators of the late Andreas Kariyavoulas and the defendant over the price and payment for four leasehold assignments of land at Essipun, Sekondi. The plaintiffs sought ¢48,000 and interest, alleging non‑payment, and alternatively asked to set aside the assignments. The defendant pleaded estoppel per rem judicatam, relying on prior rulings in Land Suit No. 4/70 and a Court of Appeal decision confirming that the agreed total price was ¢12,000 and paid. Twumasi J. analyzed estoppel and res judicata, examined the earlier record, found the prior decisions to be judgments in rem and the price determination a necessary issue estoppel, and held that, as administrators, plaintiffs were bound by Kariyavoulas’s admissions through his solicitors. The court upheld the estoppel, entered judgment for ¢12,000 with interest, and awarded costs.
JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
On 2 May 1979 the plaintiffs herein issued a writ of summons couched in the following terms:
"(1) ¢48,000 (forty-eight thousand cedis) being the total consideration for the assignment of 4 (four) parcels of land situated and lying at Essipun, Sekondi and covered by deeds of assignment registered Nos. DR 1187/70; DR 1188/70; DR 1189/70 and DR 1190/70 conveyed by the late Andreas Kariyavoulas to the defendant in 1970 at ¢12,000 (twelve thousand cedis) each;
(2) interest on the sum of ¢48,000 (forty-eight thousand cedis) at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from 1971 to the date of judgment; and
(3) a declaration in the alternative setting aside the said assignments for failure of consideration."
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred in paragraph 4 thereof that the total consideration of ¢48,000 was not, in fact, paid though the deeds of assignment expressed it to have been paid. They also averred in paragraph 5 that Andreas Kariyavoulas died in Greece shortly after the assignment of the deeds and they were granted letters of administration on 5 May 1977 after they had attained their majority; and accordingly, as stated by them in paragraph 1 of their statement of claim, they brought this action in their capacity as the personal representatives of the late Kariyavoulas and they did so per their lawful attorney, Madam Adjuah Donkor.
In his answer to the plaintiffs' claim, the defendant averred in paragraph 3 of his statement of defence that the late Andreas Kariyavoulas assigned the residue of the terms of 4(four) leases and orally agreed to make two further assignments covered by Sdi 54/52 and Sdi 369/51, relating to his factory, bungalow, workshop, stores and offices, to the defendant at the total purchase price of ¢12,000 (twelve thousand cedis).
From this vantage point we can easily see the stark fact in issue on the pleadings which is also incidentally stated in a fit and convenient manner in the plaintiffs' summons for directions and it is: Whether or not the total consideration for the 4 (four) assignments is ¢12.000 (twelve thousand cedis) or ¢48,000 (forty-eight thousand cedis). The answers to other issues on the pleadings would be mere corollaries to the answer to this major issue posed above.
On this issue the [p.663] defendant by paragraph 7 of his statement of defence pleaded estoppel rem judicatam and this is set out in the summons for directions. The main keg on which this defence was perched co