REDCO LTD. v. SARPONG
1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM
- OFORI-BOATENG
- ADJABENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, who sued for specific performance of a contract to purchase a flat from the defendant-appellant, a construction company. Despite initial payments and assurances, the defendant failed to allocate the flat within the agreed timeframe and later demanded a much higher price. The trial judge struck out the defence as frivolous, and the decision was upheld on appeal. The court held that specific performance was suitable as damages would not suffice, and that affidavit evidence was proper to strike out a frivolous defence. The appeal was dismissed.
This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, Accra presided over by Dove J. The facts are that sometime in 1980 the plaintiff-respondent agreed to buy a two-bed-room flat (type C) from the defendant-appellant, a company engaged in the construction and sale of residential accommodation to interested customers.
The completed flat agreed on cost ¢72,000. In November 1980 the respondent made a first down payment of ¢19,000 to clinch the deal. The balance was to be paid only after the flat had been completed.
The appellant, however, by a letter, exhibit A, dated 16 March 1981 informed the respondent that the flat in question would be ready for conveyance to him on 31 December 1981, and so he should pay a second instalment of ¢31,400. The respondent promptly agreed and even paid ¢32,000 thus leaving an unpaid balance of ¢21,000.
It may be useful here to recite some relevant portions of exhibit A:
"We expect to complete the flat by the end of 1981. We expect to receive your cheque for payment in respect of the remaining amount due on the second deposit not later than 30 April 1981. If we do not hear from you by the said date, we will refund your initial deposit to you and reallocate the house to another applicant"
At the end of 1981 the appellant had not allocated any flat to the respondent. Seven years later, the appellant wrote to the respondent that if he wanted his flat he should now pay ¢3,349,000 contrary to the agreed written terms in exhibit A.
The respondent immediately sued on his contract illustrated by exhibit A, and claimed specific performance on the ground that although ¢21,000 of the ¢51,000 had not been paid, the amount of ¢30,000 received by the appellant constituted sufficient act of part performance to warrant the grant of specific performance.
The appellant entered appearance and filed his defence. The [p.460] appellant did not dispute the breach of the contract between them. The main defence put up was that:
"The defendant says that circumstances which could best be described as extraneous and over which the defendant could not have control militated against the completion of the said flat by the end of 1981. The defendant took steps to inform all its numerous clients and applicants on developments affecting the progress of the project."
Based upon the statements of claim and defence and the accompanying affidavits, the respondent moved the court for judgment under Orders 19, r. 29 and 40, r. 6 of the High Court (Civil P