Pergah Transport Ltd. v. Sabat Motors Ltd and 3 Ors
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR, ESQ
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (Eric Kyei Baffour, J.) was asked by Pergah Transport Ltd to set aside a prior High Court judgment (IRL/25/11) in favour of Sabat Motors Ltd regarding Plot No. 29, Light Industrial Area, Ring Road, Accra. Pergah claimed an earlier sale agreement (4 July 2006) with Sabat, substantiated by payments to Merchant Bank, and sought title, specific performance, an injunction, damages, and costs. Sabat denied any sale and filed a counterclaim for title, injunction, recovery of possession, declarations of fraud against Reiss Atsu Ahadzi, Uriah Allotey and Nanka Bruce, and a refund of monies. The court held that in a fraud‑based challenge, only fraud is in issue and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Pergah’s evasive evidence failed that standard. All Pergah’s claims were dismissed. Sabat’s duplicative declaratory relief was declined, but recovery of possession was granted. The fraud declarations and refund relief against the individual defendants were refused. Costs of GH20,000 were awarded to Sabat against Pergah, and GH5,000 against Sabat in favour of the individual defendants.
The parties are at id idem that the subject matter of this dispute has been the subject of a previous litigation in Suit No IRL/25/11 in a matter titled Sabat Motors v Pergah Transport.
In that Suit No IRL/25/11 1st Defendant took out an amended writ as seen in Ex ‘11’ for: 1. Declaration of title to Plot No 29 Light Industrial area, Ring road, Accra and the building thereon 2. Perpetual injunction against the Defendant [Plaintiff herein] by itself, its personnel, servants, agents and heirs from in any way adversely dealing with the property the subject matter of the suit 3. General damages for illegal occupation of the property of the Plaintiffs [sic], unlawful possession and use.
4. An order by the Court that the Defendants are encroachers who have fraudulently acquired Plot No 29 belonging to the Plaintiffs [sic]. Plaintiff herein entered conditional appearance in that suit as Defendant but failed to take further action.
Judgment in default of defence was obtained against him.
One Alex Abban, Esq came to set the judgment aside and leave granted for the Plaintiff herein to file its defence to the claim of 1st Defendant herein in that suit.
Plaintiff decided not to file a statement of defence nor attend the trial.
The action was tried by Barbara Ward Acquah J and judgment granted in favour of 1st defendant herein.
Plaintiff appealed against the decision but failed to pursue the appeal.
With its options virtually foreclosed regarding the previous suit it commenced this instant action and in the amended writ issued against the 1st Defendant the Plaintiff claims the following reliefs: a. Order setting aside the judgment in Suit No IRL/25/11 as obtained by fraud.
b. Declaration of title to Plot No 29, Light Industrial area , Ring Road Accra and the building thereon.
c. Order for specific performance on the 1st Defendant to observe the agreement for the sale of land dated 4th July, 2006 and executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
d. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its assigns, agents and all persons claiming through it from interfering with Plaintiff’s occupation and possession of the property.
e. Order on the Defendant to pay general damages to Plaintiff.
f. Cost on full indemnity basis to Plaintiff.
g. Further (other) order as the court may seem meet.
1st Defendant on the other hand has not only parried the claims of the Plaintiff but has counter claim for the following reliefs: a. Declaration of title to Plot