2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
AMADU JSC, writing for the Supreme Court, dismissed a further appeal by the Defendants and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision upholding the High Courts judgment, with a variation of ownership shares. The dispute stems from the Madina Market Extension Project (Lot 2), originally contemplated under an August 2000 MOU between the Ga District Assembly and Norcon-Rosehill (Gh) Ltd., an entity never incorporated, to be executed by the 2nd Defendant with the 1st Plaintiffs participation through the 2nd Plaintiff. After Mrs. Pearl Amarquayes land claim forced the Assemblys exit, the parties continued by oral and conduct-based agreement, financing construction through tenant payments. The 2nd Defendant later incorporated Rosehill (Gh) Ltd., obtained a land title in that companys name, redesigned the project, and built the 135-shop Rosehill Heights Shopping Mall. Rejecting a res judicata defense tied to earlier litigation by traders, the Court found a valid enforceable agreement, credited the 1st Plaintiffs documented contributions, and adjusted ownership shares to 50% (1st Plaintiff), 10% (2nd Plaintiff), and 40% (Defendants), affirming the lower courts otherwise.
AMADU JSC:-
This appeal is from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 26th March 2020 which affirmed wholly the judgment of the High Court dated 7th January 2016 in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents/ Respondents.
In the High Court Accra, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiffs’) by their amended writ of summons claimed against the Defendants/Appellants/Applicants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Defendants’) the following reliefs:-
“a. Declaration that the Madina Market Extension Project (LOT2) is
jointly owned by the parties in the following manner:
1st Plaintiff has 50% ownership.
2nd Plaintiff has 25% ownership.
Defendants have 25% ownership
An order for the recovery of possession of 50% of the said Market complex for the 1st Plaintiff and 25% for the 2nd Plaintiff.
An order for the partitioning of the said Market Complex according to the ownership structure stated in relief (a) with the aid of the Court Registrar.
An order directed at the Defendants to give a comprehensive account of all the monies collected from the tenants, and the expenses incurred on the construction of the Market Complex Extension Project.
An order for the assessment of the expenditure incurred solely by the 1st Plaintiff on the initial construction works she carried out and a further order for the refund of one third (1/3) of the amount to the Plaintiff.
An order for the 2nd Defendant to deliver Land Title Certificate NO.GA 21 712 dated 13 September 2005 into court and a further order that it be cancelled.
Costs.
Any other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit.”
At the end of the trial, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs by granting all the reliefs endorsed on the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim and other consequential reliefs to give effect to the judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. This further appeal to this court demonstrates the Defendants’ dissatisfaction with the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.
BACKGROUND-PLAINTIFFS’ CASE
The case of the Plaintiffs is that 2nd Defendant secured a contract with the Ga District Assembly by which he was to construct Lot.2 of the Madina Market Extension project for the Assembly. Because the 2nd Defendant lacked the funds, expertise and experience to execute the contract, he, through the instrumentality of the 2nd Plaintiff was introduced to the 1st Plaintiff, a