NII KOMMEY OKINE & ANOR VS PROTEUS LIMITED

I have listened to the submission by counsel for the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants), praying for the grant of the application for an order for reserved price in respect of the property which has been attached in this case.

The valuation report in respect of the property is dated August, 2023. The Applicants in their Writ of Summons which was filed on 5th May 2016, asked the court to compel the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) to pay the outstanding balance of the purchase price of the attached property.

From the Applicants Statement of Claim, the Respondent paid part of the purchase price leaving an outstanding balance of USD 223, 530. 00 unpaid.

It does not appear to the court, that the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim filed on 5th May 2016 have been amended.

The Applicants in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of their Statement of Claim stated, that they made an outright sale of the attached property to the Respondent of which part of the purchase price was paid remaining the balance the Applicants claimed in their Writ of Summons.

The Applicants did not ask for any alternative relief from the court for cancellation of the agreement between the parties and recovery of the property upon refund of money the Respondent paid to the Applicants.

The court has been informed by the Applicants representative, that the Applicants have put somebody in possession of the property.

I am of the opinion, that once the Applicants sold the property to the Respondent, the Applicants forfeited every interest they had in the property to the Respondent.

Therefore, upon default of any part of the purchase price, the remedy available to the Applicants are to sue for the outstanding balance as they did in this case, but not to go back and take possession of the property either directly or indirectly.

The court does not know how long the Applicants have been in constructive possession of the property.

The court does not know how much the Respondent could have earned from the property if the Applicants were not in constructive possession.

Therefore, granting this application will lead to unjust enrichment on the part of the Applicants which the law frowns upon.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at page 1678 defines unjust enrichment as “a benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or compensation”See: ANKRAH v OFORI