JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.
Apaloo C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant is a clerk employed in the Circuit Court at Tamale. He owns a leasehold premises there. It is house No. CHE. 41. The lessor is the Government of Ghana and the ninety-nine year lease contained the usual covenants including covenant not to assign "without the previous consent in writing of the government."
Some time in 1972 or thereabouts, the appellant fell into debt and the premises in question was advertised to be sold by public auction to meet repayment of the debt. He appeared to be pressed for money and sought the respondent's financial assistance to enable him save the property.
That assistance was not forthcoming.
The evidence suggests that rather than having his house publicly auctioned, the appellant preferred to dispose of it himself. He accordingly returned to the respondent and offered it to him for sale. The latter was willing to buy and an agreement was reached between them. This was reduced into writing and signed by the appellant. In view of the case which the appellant sought to present unsuccessfully to the court below, it is necessary to set out the terms of that agreement. It reads:
"I Charles Ndoley owner of house No. CHE. 41 Tamale, have this 10 January 1973 agreed with or entered into a binding contract with Alhassan Iddrisu of house No........ Tamale to sell my house No. CHE. 41 situated in Tamale to the said Alhassan Iddrisu.
That I Charles Ndoley have this 10 January 1973 received from the said Alhassan Iddrisu the sum of two thousand six hundred cedis (¢2,600) being part-payment of the purchase price. It is hereby agreed between us that the purchase price should be five thousand cedis."
Upon receipt of the money, he handed his title deeds, that is the lease, to the respondent. The evidence shows that the appellant received two further instalments of the purchase price. This litigation arose because the appellant apparently repented the agreement and refused or neglected to execute an assignment of the lease to the respondent. He did not seek or obtain the consent of the government to do this. It is this conduct on the appellant's part that led the respondent to seek in the court below specific performance of the agreement.
When the appellant was served with the writ he entered an unconditional appearance. As he did not file a defence, leave was sought and granted to enter interlocutory judgment against him. In due course, evidence was le
