2012
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court decision, authored by Jones Dotse JSC, concerns a buyer who acquired a five‑bedroom house at a 2002 public auction conducted by Adonten Mart at the instance of the Defendants, a leading mortgage‑financing institution (HFC). After paying USD 40,000 and receiving possession, the buyer was prevented from occupying when the original owner, Cyril Kofi Hayford, successfully sued and recovered title. The buyer then sued HFC seeking delivery of a comparable house or its open market value, lost rent, and costs. The High Court awarded present‑day replacement value; the Court of Appeal recognized the restitutio in integrum principle but nonetheless ordered only a refund of USD 40,000 plus interest. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal’s order inconsistent with its own reasoning, reaffirmed that damages must restore the buyer to the position as if the contract had been performed, rejected an illegality defense, found insufficient proof of lost rents, and restored the High Court’s open‑market value award.
J U D G M E N T
JONES DOTSE JSC:
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff against a Court of Appeal judgment dated 16th December, 2010 in favour of the Defendants/Appellants/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Defendants. In this regard, it has to be noted at this stage that the plaintiff who instituted the suit against the Defendants, was initially successful in the High Court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court decision of 6th February 2008.
FACTS
The Plaintiff purchased a five bedroom house at a public auction in 2002 that was conducted by Adonten Mart at the instance of the Defendants, a leading financial institution in the country and one of the major players in mortgage financing of houses. The House that the Plaintiff purchased from the defendants following an advertisement of the auction that the Defendants placed in the local newspapers had the following features:
1. The compound measured approximately 120 feet by 100 feet and included space to park cars.
2. The house has five spacious bedrooms and air conditioning facilities in the sitting room and master bedroom.
3. The roof was made of painting tiles whilst the floor was tiled with porcelain tiles.
4. The windows of the house were aluminum sliding windows and the doors were sliding and burglar proof.
The Plaintiff contended that, after having seen the advertisement on the sale of H/No BAE A/25 Baatsona, Accra, he went and inspected the said house and found the above features all in place and accordingly was satisfied with the house. As a result, the plaintiff successfully bid on the property at the auction that was conducted on the 12th day of September 2002 and succeeded in securing the house with his bid of $40,000USD. The Plaintiff paid the Defendants the auction price of the house, and Defendants also handed over the property to him.
The Plaintiff however faced resistance from the original owner of the house, (one Cyril Kofi Hayford) when he attempted to move into the house. This original owner, successfully sued the Defendants, the plaintiff and the Auctioneer and claimed the house back and retained the rights as owner.This prevented the plaintiff from occupying the house he had bought with the purpose of occupying.
After the Plaintiff failed to reach agreement with the defendants on the sudden turn of events, he sued the Defendants at the High Court, Accra claiming the following reliefs:
RELIEFS CLAIM