REGINA QUAYE & ANOTHER v. MR. SAMUEL K. QUARTEY
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE J. A. (PRESIDING)
- NICHOLAS C. A. AGBEVOR J. A.
- JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) J. A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Jennifer A. Dodoo JA authored a Court of Appeal decision allowing an appeal by the Plaintiffs/Appellants, who paid US$50,000 for a 10-year lease of two rooms and a garage at House D.60, Danquah Circle, Osu, Accra. The Respondent failed to deliver vacant possession due to opposition from his siblings and later proposed selling the property with them and using his share of the proceeds to refund the Appellants. After the High Court denied the Appellants motion for summary judgment, they appealed. Reviewing the pleadings and correspondence (SGA1SGA5), and applying Order 14 rule 1 of CI 47 with authorities including Kuma v. Bart-Plange, Afodofe, Yartel, Ballat Nedam and Sam Jonah, the Court found no bona fide defence or triable issue. It entered judgment on the Appellants claim and indicated the Respondents counterclaim could proceed below. Justices Senyo Dzamefe JA (Presiding) and N. C. A. Agbevor JA concurred.
DODOO, JA (MRS)
Plaintiffs/Appellants (Appellants) paid to the Defendant/Respondent (Respondent) an amount of $50,000.00 in consideration for a lease of premises for 10 years commencing 1st January, 2014. It was their case that the Respondent was unable to give them vacant possession as he faced stiff opposition from his siblings.
The Respondent does not expressly deny receiving the money and does not deny the failure to put the Appellants into occupation of the leased premises. He however stated that the Appellants’ demand for a refund of the rent already paid amounted to an anticipatory breach of contract. He therefore made a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract.
At the close of pleadings, the Appellants applied for summary judgment which has been denied. They have therefore appealed against the denial of their application for Summary Judgment. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(a) That the learned trial judge misdirected herself and committed a grievous error of law when she dismissed the Plaintiffs Application for Summary Judgment on the ground that the Defendant’s Statement of Defence raises triable issues when in fact the Statement of Defence does not raise any issue warranting a trial.
(b) That the learned trial judge misdirected herself on the law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when she failed to treat the Plaintiffs’ Claim as separate and distinct from the Defendant’s Counterclaim and rather held that “going ahead to give judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claim and proceeding to try the Counterclaim will not be the best course of action even though a Counterclaim is a separate action.’
(c) Additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.
In their written submissions, the Appellants argued that once the Respondent had admitted receiving the amount of $50,000.00 and had also admitted his failure to put the Appellants in possession, they were entitled to Summary Judgment. They did not file any additional grounds of appeal.
The Respondent did not file any submissions in answer to the instant appeal. The Court is duty bound to evaluate the entire record, oral and documentary in coming to a decision as to whether or not the judgment of the trial court should be maintained or interfered with. i.e., with or without submissions from the Respondent, this Court in its duty to rehear the matter under Rule 8(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, CI 19, must evaluate the entire evidence on record to satisfy