JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
The plaintiff in this case is an infant. She brought an action against the defendant for a decree of specific performance of an agreement whereby the defendant was to sell his estate house. She also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from occupying the premises during the pendency of the suit and claimed damages for the breach of the sale agreement.
The actual contract was negotiated and concluded by the plaintiff's father, one Blankson Lartey, who at all times let it be known that he was buying the house for his daughter. All the documents were therefore made in the name of the plaintiff. No exception was taken in the pleadings or otherwise up to the stage of trial to Blankson Lartey conducting the action on behalf of the daughter until he gave evidence when out of his own mouth fell the words that the daughter for whom he was buying the house was under age. Blankson Lartey was then cross-examined about his authority to commence and maintain the action. This led to an amendment of the title of the suit to indicate that the plaintiff was suing by her next friend, namely, her father. There was also an amendment of the defence putting forward the claim that the agreement could not be specifically enforced as it purported to have been made with an infant. All this is somewhat strange because the defendant is a nephew of Blankson Lartey and they appeared to have been quite close to each other. So that one might expect that the defendant would have known about the infancy of the plaintiff before the case started and would have instructed his lawyer accordingly.
Be that as it may, the learned trial judge agreed with the defendant's contention on this point and refused to decree specific performance on the ground of the absence of mutuality in contracts involving infants. It is this aspect of the decision which the plaintiff complains about. The defendant also is aggrieved by the decision but his grievance stems from other causes. And to appreciate the substance of the rival cases more details of the facts and circumstances leading to the decision should be given at this stage.
The defendant is the lessee of a house, No. 336, West Korle Gonno Estate. He held this lease from the State Housing Corporation to whom he was paying rent. In 1971 he was in financial difficulties. He had not paid the rent for three and a half years; he could not pay his rates or his electricity bills. Under these circumstances he approached his
