KWADWO OPOKU & ANOTHER v. ERIC KOFI BOATENG

JUDGMENT

By this action, the Plaintiffs seek the following reliefs against the Defendant:

a) Recovery of the land as well as the building thereon known as house No. Block 39, Plot 1, Ahodwo, Kumasi.

b) An order from this Honorable court directing the Defendant to render accounts on the said property.

c) General damages for the breach of the lease agreement of 18th August 1999.

d) Costs including lawyer’s fees.

The facts which gave rise to this suit are narrated below:

Sometime in August, 1999, the Plaintiffs together with one Abusuapanin Yaw Adu (now deceased) entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the latter to build a three storey building on an undeveloped portion of land known as house No. Block 39 Plot 1. The agreement stipulated that the Defendant would use a period of two (2) years to complete the structure. Also, it was a term of the agreement that the Defendant upon completion of the ground floor of the property would rent same out and use part of the proceeds to sponsor two (2) members of the Plaintiffs’ family to travel abroad. The Defendant, per the agreement, was to enjoy proceeds from the rental of the shops for a period of thirty-five (35) years before handing same over to the Plaintiffs.

It is also a fact that by the year 2001, the Defendant had developed the basement and ground floor of the property and rented out all seven (7) shops on the ground floor. The development of the basement is,however, not yet complete.After renting the shops out, the Defendant has failed or refused to sponsor two (2) people from the Plaintiffs’ family to travel abroad and has also failed or refused to carry any further development on the building.

After unsuccessful attempts at settlement the following issues were set down for trial:

I. Whether or not the suit has been commenced in the proper forum.

II. Whether or not the suit is statute barred.

III. Whether or not the suit is an abuse of the court’s process.

IV. Whether or not the Plaintiffs have capacity to institute the present action.

V. Whether or not the purported service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendant on non-working day is valid.

VI. Whether or not the Defendant has failed to sponsor two members of Plaintiffs family abroad.

VII. Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to their claim.

The Case of the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant has not fulfilled his obligations under the terms of the contract. They contend that the d