KWAKU AHAMAH v. PANDIT ADU

J U D G M E N T

ATUGUBA ,J.S.C.;

In this case the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff sued the Defendant/Appellant/Appellant in the High Court, Accra for the following reliefs:

“a) Declarations that the oral agreement between him and the defendant was void and confers no title on the Defendants.

b) A perpetual injunction order against the Defendant and his agents or any other person claiming through him.

c) Alternatively, a declaration that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a sub-lease from the Plaintiff because the transaction and events that led to the signing of memoranda between them was vitiated by fraud, mistake and duress.

d) Damages for fraud.

e) Order for the sale of the structures built on the plaintiff’s land.”

The trial judge gave judgment for the Plaintiff only as to relief (c)

supra. The trial judge anchored her decision on two rationes

decidendi. First she held that the transaction contravened certain

covenants of the headlease between the Plaintiff and the State

Housing Corporation of Ghana. Secondly that the crux of the

transaction between the parties, exhibit A, which was therein

described as a receipt but was in reality a lease agreement was not

binding on the Plaintiff, an illiterate who was not shown on the

evidence to have understood its contents. The Court of Appeal

affirmed the trial judge’s judgment and also her said two rationes

decidendi

THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT

Undaunted, the Defendant has further appealed to this ultimate court.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

“i) That the Court of Appeal misdirected itself by failing to appreciate that the judgment of the trial court handed down on 16th April 2003, was against the weight of evidence and, therefore, fell into the same error in which the trial court found itself.

ii) That the Court of Appeal erred by failing to appreciate that there was inconclusive evidence from which the trial court could have inferred that the Plaintiff was illiterate or that Exhibit A was procured by mistake, fraud or duress and that on the balance of probabilities, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ought to have found for the Defendant on his counterclaim and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

iii) That the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to find for the Defendant, having concluded that the Plaintiff had neglected to obtain the previous consent in writing of the State Housing Corporation (SHC), prior to entering into negotiat