SAMUEL ERNEST ACKAH v. F. & M. KHOURY (PARTNERS) SYRIAN TRADERS OF SEKONDI

[The court dealt with disputed facts, and continued:]

On the 12th June, 1946, the plaintiff assigned his share in plots 119 and 121 to F. & M. Khoury, the consideration being £400 which F. & M. Khoury paid to the plaintiff, and receipt of which is not disputed by him. The 1946 Assignment included all houses erected on the land. The Assignees F. & M. Khoury entered into the usual covenants to pay rent and observe the covenants and conditions contained in the original lease. This assignment is Exhibit "F".

On the same day that the plaintiff assigned his interest in plots 119 and 121 to F. & M. Khoury an agreement was entered into by the parties. It is contained in Exhibits "G1" and "G2". This is described by the plaintiff as a collateral agreement. The defendants deny that is a collateral agreement and say that it was purely and simply an agreement whereby F. & M. Khoury agreed to sell, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase, on the 12th December, 1947, one-half share of, and in, leasehold plots Nos. 119 and 121, Prince of Wales Road, Takoradi, together with buildings erected thereon. The price to be paid was:-

(a) The sum of £400,

(b) One-half of the total cost of erecting and completing the buildings on the said plots,

(c) Interest on the said two sums at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of the agreement until 12th December, 1947.

The sale was to be subject to the purchaser having the purchase money available on the 12th December, 1947, and to the vendors being able to obtain the consent of the Government to the Assignment of one-half share. It was further agreed that if the purchaser should not have the purchase money available on the 12th December, 1947, the agreement should be void. In his Statement of Claim, plaintiff says that by this agreement defendants agreed to re-assign one-half share in the plots to the plaintiff. There is nothing in the agreement to this effect. It was, as I have said, an agreement to sell and purchase. Defendant says in evidence too, that plaintiff asked them to re-sell.

The plaintiff has stated that this agreement was executed before the execution of the Assignment. It is difficult to accept this, because, as Learned Counsel for the defendant pointed out, if it were in fact so executed, then the defendants were disposing of something of which, at the time, they had no legal right to dispose. I am satisfied and accept as a fact, that the Assignment was executed before the Agreement.

Learned Counsel for p