NORCON (GHANA) LIMITED & ANOTHER v. ROSEHILL (GHANA) LIMITED & ANOTHER

WELBOURNE (MRS), J.A.

Introduction

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 7th January, 2016. The judgment can be found at pages 158 – 192 of Volume 2 of the Records of Appeal. The judgment was in favour of the Plaintiffs therein. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Defendants therein lodged an appeal against the said judgment praying this court to overturn same in its entirety.

Brief Facts/Background of the Case:

By an amended Writ of Summons filed on the 29th May, 2012 found at page 104 of Volume 1 of the Records of Appeal the Plaintiffs sought the following reliefs against the Defendants herein:

Declaration that the Madina Market Complex Extension Project (Lot 2) is jointly owned by the parties in the following manner:

i. 1st Plaintiff has 50% ownership.

ii. 2nd Plaintiff has 25% ownership.

iii. 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 on one third (1/3) of the amount to Plaintiff.

An order for the 2nd Defendant to deliver land title certificate No. GA 21712 dated 13th September, 2000 into court and a further order that it be cancelled.

Costs.

Any other reliefs as this Honourable court may deem fit.

Summary of the Plaintiffs’ Case:

It is the case of the Plaintiffs that 2nd Defendant secured a contract with the Ga District Assembly by which contract 2nd Defendant was to construct Lot 2 of the Madina Market Extension project for the Assembly. 2nd Defendant lacked the money, expertise and experience for this work, so through the instrumentality of the 2nd Plaintiff, the 1st Plaintiff, a reputable construction company, agreed to partner the Defendants to carry out this contract.

According to the Plaintiffs, the agreement between the parties was partly in writing, oral and by conduct. By this, parties agreed to construct Lot 2 made up of 26 Shops of the Madina Extension Project