2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 7th December, 2017, the Plaintiffs, including a Catholic organization, sued the Defendants, a realty company, over a breached land sale agreement. The Plaintiffs paid GH₵210,000.00 for land that was later discovered to be owned by the government. The Defendants failed to respond to requests for a refund, leading the Plaintiffs to seek judicial relief. The court found in favor of the Plaintiffs, granting them recovery of the purchase price, interest, special damages for expenses, general damages, and costs.
BACKGROUND
On 7th December, 2017, the Plaintiffs instituted the instant action against the Defendants.
The writ was subsequently amended by the Plaintiffs on 7th February, 2018 and endorsed with the following reliefs:
a. An order for recovery of the amount of GH₵210, 000. 00 paid to the Defendants for the land.
b. Interest on the above sum from 4th September, 2015 till date of final payment.
c. Recovery of special damages.
d. Damages
e. Costs.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS
The plaint of the Plaintiffs is contained in paragraphs 5 to 16 of the amended statement of claim, a summation of which is as follows: According to the Plaintiffs, the 1st Plaintiff is a benevolent Christian organisation in the Catholic Church and incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ghana, whilst the 2nd Plaintiff is the Provincial Superior, the substantive head of the Divine World Missionaries-SVD, Ghana province and one of the registered trustees of the organisation who has at all times represented the 1st Plaintiff in its transactions with the Defendants.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants are described as a realty company and its Chief Executive Director and Managing Director respectively.
The genesis of this suit, per the Plaintiffs, is that they saw an advertisement by the 1st Defendant for the sale of its land situate at Doryumu, in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana.
The Plaintiffs say that they approached the 2nd Defendant and negotiated to purchase sixty plots of the land, with each plot measuring 70 by 100 feet.
The Plaintiffs continue that based on the Defendants’ assurances, they proceeded to sign an agreement for the sale of the sixty plots of the land valued at a total cost of GH₵210, 000. 00. That mindful of the risks associated with land purchases, they included in the agreement they made with the Defendants a clause to the effect that the “Vendor has represented to the purchaser that it is the beneficial owner of the said parcel of land and has the capacity to lease the said parcel to the purchaser”. In addition to this, they also included in the agreement the following term: In the event of the Vendor not delivering or delivering an invalid Deed of Lease to the Purchaser, the Purchaser shall have a refund of the whole of the purchase price plus interest at the prevailing risk free (Treasury bill) rate, within twenty-one working days after a proof of such invalidity by the Purchaser.
It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants were paid the full pu