SCANCOM LTD VS IAIN SELORMEY & 1 ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS)
- JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendants for wrongful termination of the tenancy agreement for House No. 34, 1st Dade Link, North Labone. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, declaring the termination wrongful and awarding a refund of rent and special damages with interest. The Defendants' counterclaims of fraud and breach of trust were dismissed, highlighting the importance of establishing clear and convincing evidence when alleging fraud in contract disputes.
The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally, an amount of GH¢474, 720. 00 being a refund of rent advance it had paid to the Defendant in respect of House No. 34, 1st Dade Link, North Labone, together with interest from 25th September 2013 till date of final payment.
In addition, the Plaintiff made claims for special damages of GH¢67, 257. 00 which it said it had incurred in cleaning and fumigating the premises as well as other expenses.
It also claimed for interest on the said amount from 25th September 2013 till the date of final payment.
There was a further claim for special damages of GH¢150. 00 a week it said it had expended on storage of property from 13th December 2013 together with interest on the computed sum until suitable accommodation was found.
The Plaintiff also sued for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from renting the said House No. 34, 1st Dade Link, North Labone until it had been fully repaid.
It also sought a declaration that the act of the Defendant in terminating the tenancy was wrongful and without basis.
2 Consequently, the Plaintiff prayed for general damages for breach of contract and costs.
The Defendants in their defence admitted receiving 2 years rent in advance from the Plaintiff which they used in completing the house the subject matter of the instant dispute.
They also admitted entering into a contract with the Plaintiff for the rental of the said house.
It was the Defendants’ case that there existed previous draft agreements which culminated in a final agreement to which the parties were to append their signatures.
However, the Defendants discovered that the Plaintiff’s senior officers doctored the agreement by inserting significant variations in it and deceived the Defendants into signing it.
On discovery of this, the Defendants deemed the Plaintiff’s conduct as dishonest whereupon they decided to terminate the contract.
They gave the particulars of fraud as: a) Deceiving the Defendants into signing a doctored version of the text agreed to by the parties so as to change the nature of the agreement reached and to gain wrongful advantage over the Defendants.
b) Deceiving the Defendants to sign a document represented as the printed version of the agreed text without disclosing that they had significantly changed the text.
Upon termination, they said they had refunded to the Plaintiff all the amounts not expended on the building.
They therefore prayed the court for the follo