Shahin v Cofie and others

AMUA-SEKYI JSC. In or about 1968, the plaintiff, Anna Cofie, purchased from one Quist a piece or parcel of land measuring 150 feet by 60 feet at Osu, Accra, for the sum of ¢1,000. In or about 1972, she agreed to grant a lease of the land to the 1st defendant, Shahin. She said in her evidence that at the time she had commenced the erection of a building on the land and that the agreement was that Shahin was to complete the building and hold the premises for a period of ten years. For his part, Shahin alleged that the plaintiff had dug only a foundation and that the agreement was that he was to take a 50-year lease with an option to renew for a further 25 years. A document prepared by an Accra solicitor on the instructions of Shahin, appeared to confirm Shahin’s version of the facts. Indeed, in paragraph 10(a) of the statement of claim it was averred on behalf of the plaintiff that the lease was for 50 years with an option to now for a further 25 years. There was no dispute that the lease agreement was executed by the plaintiff. The agreed rent was ¢100 per annum.

Upon signing the lease, the plaintiff was paid the sum of ¢1,000 being ten years’ rent. Thus, if the agreement was for 10 years, the plaintiff had not only succeeded in recovering what she paid to Quist, but stood to become the owner of a completed dwelling house at the end of the period. Unfortunately, Shahin had other ideas. Within five years he had assigned his interest to Abboud, the second-named defendant, who in turn assigned the premises to Balian, the third-named defendant. When Balian moved to live in the United States, he decided to assign the premises to Lee, the fourth-named defendant. The plaintiff now alleged that these assignments were contrary to the lease she entered into with Shahin. She accordingly instructed solicitors who took out a writ against the four defendants a fifth person named Appes for an order setting aside or modifying the head-lease of 1972 on the ground that it was unconscionable.

Before the trial was concluded in the High Court the plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to amend the relief endorsed on her writ of summons by adding an alternative claim that upon a proper construction of the head-lease the term granted Shahin was 10 years. In response, counsel for Shahin applied for and was granted leave to amend the defence to plead that the plaintiff was estopped by record and conduct from claiming that the lease was for 10 years, and the hearing proce