June 1, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Justice Anthony Oppong, dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed the Circuit Court, Akropong Akwapim’s judgment concerning House No. TE 001 at Tutu Akwapim, part of the estate of the late Samuel Atta Danso (also known as Samuel Hanson Danso). The first and second defendants, sons of the deceased, and the third defendant, his widow, had posted a ‘for sale’ sign, after which the plaintiff—identified in receipts as Mr. Asante Adiyah—made various payments. The court held the defendants lacked capacity to sell estate property without being appointed administrators and that any such dealings constitute intermeddling. No concluded contract existed: the agreed price was uncertain, no written agreement was executed, and receipts showed ‘proposed sale’ or IOU-type entries, some to non-parties. The court also found the plaintiff knew early the defendants would not sell but nonetheless pursued specific performance, an equitable, discretionary remedy. Accordingly, the appellate court found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s evaluation and dismissed the appeal.
ANTHONY OPPONG, JA:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Akropong Akwapim dated 13th August, 2019. In this delivery, the designation of the parties as plaintiff and defendants as pertained in the trial circuit court shall be maintained.
The 1st and 2nd defendants were the sons of the late Samuel Atta Danso otherwise called Samuel Hanson Danso who died in the year 2000. 3rd defendant was the late Samuel Atta Danso’s widow. Samuel Atta Danso died possessed of the disputed property, that is, House No. TE 001, Tutu Akwapim. The deceased had six children in all.
After the death of Samuel Atta Danso, the 1st and 2nd defendants placed “for sale” signpost on the property, purporting to sell it. The plaintiff showed interest and purported to purchase the property. He actually claimed to have paid some amount of money in bits and pieces to defendants from time to time.
When defendants refused to convey the property to plaintiff or otherwise refused to execute a formal assignment of the property to the plaintiff, he regarded the amounts of money doled out to the defendants as constituting part payment of the contract of sale and so plaintiff sued defendants for:
a. An order of specific performance to compel Defendants to convey the property to plaintiff;
b. Further order directed at the defendants to execute an indenture in favor of plaintiff or in the alternative an order directed at the Registrar to execute an indenture on behalf of the defendants in favor of plaintiff;
c. Declaration that having received payment of the purchase price Defendants cannot resile from the agreement to sell the property to plaintiff.
After the trial of the case, the learned trial Circuit Court Judge on 13th August, 2019 entered judgment in favour of defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff being dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed against it on the following grounds:
a. That the whole judgment is against the weight of evidence;
b. That the trial judge erred in law when she found the receipts tendered by Plaintiff/Appellant do not constitute sufficient material to warrant specific performance;
c. That the trial judge erred in law when she held that the sums paid by plaintiff to defendants appear more of an IOU and insufficient for the decree of specific performance;
d. That the trial judge erred in law when she found the entire case of the Plaintiff bizarre and also found plaintiff’s relationship with the Defendants questionable;
e.