TENASSA PHAMARCUTICAL & TRADING CO. LTD v. ISSAKA KOANDA

GBADEGBE JSC:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal by which the decision of the trial High Court was affirmed in this matter herein. By its decision, the Court of Appeal accepted the plaintiff’s case in preference to that of the defendant. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant-appellant-appellant (hereinafter conveniently referred to as the defendant) has appealed to this court seeking the reversal of the judgment, the subject matter of these proceedings. In his effort to persuade us to yield to his invitation, the defendant through his counsel has in his statement of case argued three grounds of appeal that were contained in the notice of appeal and therein numbered as “a”,” b”, and “c” and expressed as follows:

“(a) That the learned justices of Appeal erred in holding that the property in dispute was acquired by E B Asante for and on behalf of Asante Chemical Store notwithstanding the fact that Asante Chemical Store was a business name and not a legal entity and therefore could not enter into any legal transaction including a lease.

(b) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the plaintiff was the successor of Asante Chemical Store and therefore owner of the property in dispute even in the absence of any evidence on record substantiating that fact.

(c) The learned justices of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the defendant never acquired the said property in dispute from E B Asante contrary to the presence of a Receipt and Statutory Declaration executed by E B Asante in his lifetime in favour of the Defendant.”

The questions which we have to determine in these proceedings turning on the said grounds are as follows: Who acquired the leasehold in regard to the disputed property? And if indeed, as the appellant contends, it was the deceased E. B. Asante, to whom the grant was made, was there any sale by E B Asante of the leasehold property to him? So stated, these questions raise simple questions of fact and law. The first of these questions calls for the construction of the leasehold document and the second only arises if the answer to the first question is supportive of the defendant’s case. The first question turns on the combined effect of the first two grounds of appeal that were argued in the defendant’s statement of case while the second question relates to the third ground.

Before turning to the task with which the court is faced, it is observed that from the record of appea