PAUL OTCHERE & 14 ORS v. EDWARD NASSER & CO. LTD.

TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.

The forest of contentions and proceedings that have lasted eighteen years and cover Seven Hundred and Ninety-three (793) pages of appeal records in this case can all be rested under one tree. This is the question whether the Co-Defendants/Appellants (hereafter referred to as Appellants) have any enforceable rights in contract or equity to merit a declaration that they are the owners in possession of Plot Nos. 125 and 136 in the OTB layout of Kumasi (hereafter referred to as the property). And the answer is a resounding no. This is the conclusion the learned trial judge came to in his judgment delivered after reviewing all the pleadings, exhibits, and testimonies. This is the judgment we also come to after reviewing the Record of Appeal (ROA). And we have clarified this decision very early in this judgment because, like the trial judge, we find this litigation to have been an extremely unfortunate one, totally unsupported by any arena of law, and clearly sustained by misguided notions about rules of evidence, the law of contract, the law of immovable property, and company law.

According to the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs/Respondents (hereafter referred to as Plaintiffs) and the Defendant/Respondent (hereafter referred to as Defendant) signed an Agreement dated 11th February 1998 for the Plaintiffs to purchase the Defendant’s interests in the property. The Lands Commission, administrators of the property on behalf of the owner – Government of Ghana – gave its Consent to this transaction on 29th April 1998. The Defendant, acting by its Chief Executive called Edward Nassar, executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs registered the Agreement with the Lands Registry on 2nd September 1998 under Title No 249 and Serial Number 545/98. The acts left to perfect the Plaintiffs' interests in the property were for the original 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the High Court suit (now deceased), who were the Director and General Manager of the Defendant’s Company respectively, to affix the Seal of the Defendant to the Deed of Assignment and for the Appellants, who were tenants of the Defendant, to attorn tenancy to the Plaintiffs as new owners. This is when things started to unravel.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to affix the Seal to the Deed of Assignment, and the Appellants refused to acknowledge the Plaintiffs as purchasers of the Defendant’s interest in the building. So the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for