SWISS WATCH COMPANY LIMITED v. ANNIE LARNYO ARYITEY & OTHERS
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU, (MS) JA (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE JA
- AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit, which claimed rights over a leased property that was sold to the fourth defendant. The trial court had dismissed the suit under Order 11 Rule 18(1) of CI 47, entering judgment for the fourth defendant. However, the Court of Appeal held that significant issues, including allegations of fraud, required a full trial. The case was remanded for retrial with costs awarded to the appellant.
AGYEMANG JA:
In this appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Accra (Human Rights Division), the plaintiff/appellant seeks the setting aside of the ruling of that court delivered on 30th of July 2015.
The ruling, the subject of this appeal, followed an application by the 4th defendant for the plaintiff’s suit to be struck out in the exercise of the court’s powers to strike out pleadings or summarily dismiss a suit under Order 11 Rule 18(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47.
The said suit was brought against the first three defendants: a mother (now deceased) and her two sons - her lawful attorneys. The mother: the first defendant, was the sole surviving child of the late Reverend Samuel Saki Odonkor who acquired property described as House No. C1/3 Farrar Avenue Sobukwe Road, Adabraka, Accra. She survived her three siblings upon whom the property devolved: Grace Nene Kwansa, Nathaniel Kofi Odonkor, and Peter Philip Odonkor. Reverend Samuel Saki Odonkor leased a portion of the said house, more particularly, the frontage (alternately described as the side age) of the premises to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff, for upwards of forty years, carried on the trade of retail and servicing of Omega watches, Tissot watches, as well as ball pens and ancillary items thereat.
By letter of 19th August 2010, the plaintiff was advised by the third defendant, one of the attorneys of the first defendant, that its tenancy which was due to expire on the 31st of March 2011 would not be renewed. The plaintiff was further advised that the house would be put up for sale, and that he had the option of purchase of the freehold at USD1,500,000 or to acquire a lease for fifty years at an annual rent of USD800,000 as well as the payment of yearly ground rent of USD500,000.
The plaintiff’s response to the letter was to demand that the consent of all the descendants of the patriarch Reverend Saki Odonkor be obtained before the sale/lease. He contended that they were co-owners of the property. The first defendant acting by her two attorneys, then after advertising the property for sale, entered into a sale transaction with the fourth defendant.
The plaintiff begun the instant suit against the first three defendants seeking: a declaration that the plaintiff was a sitting tenant of the premises; a declaration that as such sitting tenant, the defendants were “obliged by law and conveyancing convention” to give the plaintiff the first option to purchase or