NANCY MANA OTENG v. SAMUEL K. DICKSON
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- L. L. MENSAH JA (PRESIDING)
- A. A. GAISIE (MRS.) JA
- E. BAAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Amma A. Gaisie JA, sitting with L. L. Mensah JA (Presiding) and E. Baah JA, affirmed the High Court (Land Division), Tema, in a land‑sale dispute between a retired teacher (Plaintiff) and real estate consultant/architect Samuel Dickson (Defendant) concerning two plots in a proposed Prampram gated community. Plaintiff paid US$23,000 (US$7,000 and US$8,000 for plots plus US$8,000 toward construction) but received no sale agreement, was not put in possession, and her emissaries were chased by land guards. Dickson asserted a sub‑lease through Michael Martey Caulley, steps toward Land Title registration, construction commencement, and an injunction tied to wider litigation, and urged specific performance. The appellate court held the sub‑lease was an unpleaded material fact inconsistent with the defence, found no cogent proof of litigation, applied pleading discipline under C.I.47 and Rule 8 of C.I.19, declined specific performance due to uncertainty of the subject matter, rejected a belated limitation defence, and affirmed a refund with interest and costs.
AMMA A. GAISIE (MRS.) JA
This is an appeal from the Judgment of the High Court Tema dated 8th November, 2010 wherein judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent as follows:
1. The Defendant is hereby ordered to refund to the Plaintiff Twenty Three Thousand United States Dollars (US$23000.00) or its cedi equivalent being the total amount the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant for the acquisition of two residential plots of land and to embark on the construction of a house.
2. Interest at the prevailing bank rate from 2007 to the date of final payment.
3. Cost of GH¢20,000.00 against the Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
The Plaintiff is a retired teacher while the Defendant is an Architect in private practice. It is the Plaintiff’s case that in 2005, she met the Defendant in New York who informed her that he was a real estate developer and was constructing a gated Community at Prampram Lalue. The Defendant convinced her to buy a residential plot of land within the said Community at Seven Thousand United States dollars (US$7,000.00). In 2006, the Defendant persuaded her and her husband to jointly purchase another plot at a cost of Eight Thousand United State Dollars (US$8,000.00). The Plaintiff avers further that the Defendant convinced them that he was putting up a house on the land for them at a cost of US$24,000.00 and therefore Plaintiff and her husband made an advance payment of Eight Thousand United States Dollars (US$8,000.00). It is the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant has failed to enter into a sale agreement with her husband and her and when she sent people to the proposed site to ascertain whether work had commenced on the project, they were driven away by land guards. The Plaintiff contends that the refusal of Defendant to hand over the property has led to the dissolution of her marriage and her husband is demanding from her his Eight Thousand Dollars he invested in the project. She therefore instituted this action in the High Court claiming for:
1. An order directing at the Defendant to refund to the Plaintiff Twenty-Three Thousand United States Dollars (US$23,000.00) or its cedi equivalent being the total amount the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant for the acquisition of the residential plots of land and to embark on the construction of a house.
2. Interest at the prevailing bank rate from 2007 to the date of final payment.”
DEFENDANT’S CASE
The Defendant’s case is that he is not an architect but a real estate consultant