KISSI v. MATZEN & TIMM (GHANA) Ltd
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- Azu Crabbe
- Siriboe
- Anin JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Commercial Law
1970
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
An appeal revolved around the legality of unsolicited payments and the subsequent transfer of a mortgage. Utilizing precedent, such as Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Company, principles concerning unsolicited payments failing to create liens or obligations to repay, and the necessity of a request for repayment claims were reviewed in depth. The court did not decisively rule on the exact rights of unsolicited payers or the validity of the mortgage transfer.
EXTRACT FROM JUDGMENT:
“This appeal …has been argued mainly on the ground that the unsolicited payment by the respondents and the conveyance by way of transfer of the mortgage to them by the Bank were wrongful…
In Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Company (supra) Cotton L.J., at page 241 said:
“Now let us see what the general law is. It is not disputed that if a stranger pays a premium on a policy that payment gives him no lien on the policy. A man by making a payment in respect of property belonging to another, if he does so without request, is not entitled to any lien or charge on that property for such payment. If he does work upon a house without request, he gets no lien on the house for the work done.’
And at page 248, Bowen L.J., in the same case said:
‘I am of the same opinion. The general principle is, beyond all question, that work and labour done or money expended by one man to preserve or benefit the property of another do not, according to English law create a lien upon the property saved or benefited, nor, even if standing alone, create any obligation to repay the expenditure. Liabilities are not to be forced upon people behind their backs any more than you can confer a benefit upon a man against his will.’
Pointing to the exception to this proposition which is in the maritime law, Bowen L.J. continued:
‘…there can, as it seems to me, according to the Common Law, be only one principle upon which a claim for repayment can be based, that is where circumstances exist from which the proper inference is that there was a request to perform the service or to expend the money.’
This may perhaps be support for the contention by counsel for the appellant that a total stranger, unsolicited, cannot pay off another’s debt and ask for transfer of the mortgage to him thereby becoming a mortgagee or assignee of the original mortgagee. Whether this is right or not, I am not prepared to say so now. In my view, the matter does not rest there.”