KWAKU BONSU v. AMA AGYEMANG
2012
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS) JSC (PRESIDING)
- DATE-BAH JSC
- ANSAH JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Equity and Trusts
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2012
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Richard Bonsu sued Ama Agyemang seeking specific performance of an agreement concluded around 3 October 2007 for a parcel of land at Achimota near the Accra Motorway Extension. After the Lands Commission issued an offer letter, Agyemang requested and received an additional US$2,000 beyond the earlier US$4,000 and GH¢200 payments. The High Court (Novisi Aryene J.) found a valid written contract evidenced by a receipt and ordered specific performance. The Court of Appeal affirmed the factual findings but set aside specific performance, awarding damages on the view that damages could adequately compensate. On appeal, Dr. S. K. Date‑Bah JSC, writing for the Supreme Court, reaffirmed the settled presumption that damages are inadequate in land sale contracts because land is unique, rejected the Court of Appeal’s case-by-case uniqueness inquiry and adequacy-of-damages approach, and restored the High Court’s decree of specific performance and its finding that the additional US$2,000 was paid. J. V. M. Dotse JSC concurred, emphasizing appellate restraint in disturbing trial findings.
J U D G M E N T
DR. DATE-BAH JSC:
The issues raised by this appeal are principally those of law, although there are also some issues of fact. The principal legal issue raised is: when may the remedy of specific performance, which is usually available in relation to contracts for the purchase of land, be withheld from a purchaser of land? The settled conventional position of the law is that, upon breach of a contract for the sale of land, the primary remedy available to the innocent party is specific performance, although this is a discretionary equitable remedy. The facts of this case require this court to inquire into the circumstances in which this settled view of the law will be departed from. Courts in common law countries have relied on a limited range of grounds in the exceptional cases where the remedy of specific performance has been denied to a purchaser of land. The judgments in the Court of Appeal in this case raise the issue whether any of these grounds is applicable on the facts here.
The facts
The plaintiff in this case sued the defendant, claiming an order of specific performance of an agreement reached between him and the defendant on or around 3rd October 2007 in respect of land situated at Achimota, next to the Accra Motorway Extension. He also claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from selling the land in dispute to any third party pending the final determination of the suit.
After a full trial, the learned trial High Court Judge, her Ladyship Novisi Aryene J, upheld the claim of the plaintiff and, in a judgment of 5th November, 2010, granted him an order for specific performance of the contract for the purchase of the land in dispute which she held had been proven on the evidence.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the order for specific performance and instead awarded the plaintiff damages. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied by that outcome, has appealed to this court for redress. In his Notice of Appeal, the plaintiff states that his complaint is in respect of: “That part of the judgment reversing the High Court’s judgment for a decree of specific performance and thereby substituting an award for damages.” The plaintiff’s original grounds of appeal are as follows:
I. “The part of the judgment complained of is against the weight of the evidence on record.
II. Further grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.”
The plaintiff has subsequently filed the following add