OWUSU KYENKYENHENE v. J. K. ADU

JUDGMENT

ADZOE, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 14th December, 2000 affirming an award made by the trial High Court at Kumasi on 22nd January, 1999. This High Court Judge made the award pursuant to his own previous order for the valuation and sharing of the assets and liabilities of a school owned jointly by the parties. The appellant contends that the properties of the school had not been “professionally or otherwise valued” before the award was made by the High Court and that the Court of Appeal was wrong in affirming the said award.

The dispute between the parties was primarily about the ownership of a school established in Kwadaso, Kumasi, in the Ashanti Region and called the Minnesota International School. It was originally established by four men in 1982. In 1984, two of the four founders decided to quit, and the parties herein were left to run the school as joint owners. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant before us and the defendant is the respondent. I shall hereafter refer to them as Appellant and Respondent. They were the two left behind to run the school. They entered into a partnership agreement and registered the school in their joint names as owners.

The appellant became the Headmaster of the school, and the Respondent took the office of Financial/Administrative manager, up to 1992.

Troubles started in about 1992 when, according to the appellant, the respondent refused to render accounts and claimed to be the sole owner of the school.

When matters came to a head, the appellant sued the respondent on 10th May, 1994 at the High Court in Kumasi, claiming a “declaration that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly own” the school.

The trial High Court Judge gave judgment for the appellant and held that the parties jointly owned the school and that they owned it “in equal shares based on the capital contribution of ¢50,000.00 each” as provided in the partnership agreement. Exercising his discretion under Order 63, rule 6 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules, the learned judge made the following order:

“Furthermore, I hold that the assets and liabilities of the parties were to be shared in equal proportions.

From the evidence above it is quite clear to me that the parties cannot continue to operate as a partnership at will and order that the partnership be wound-up and the assets and liabilities of the partnership shared as provided for under clause 8 of Exhibit I”.

Exhibit