VICTOR AMEFU v. DR. FELICIA ANIOOSON
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ABBAN (MRS.) J.A. (PRESIDING)
- APPAU J.A.
- AYEBI J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Commercial Law
- Evidence Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the disputed sale of a house where payments were made in foreign currency, deemed illegal under Ghanaian law without proper authorization. The trial court found the transaction's performance illegal and refused to enforce the contract, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The court further ruled that no valid payments were made to the defendant, thus ordering the plaintiff to pay the house's originally agreed-upon price in local currency. Both parties appealed, but the appellate court upheld the original decision, emphasizing the illegality of the performance of the contract, and set aside contradictory orders made by the trial judge.
AYEBI J.A.
This is an appeal against the decision of an Accra Fast Track High Court dated 17th November 2007. In the judgment I will still refer to the parties by their titles as in the trial court.
The subject-matter of the suit is a house located at Teshie-Nungua Housing Estates known as Plot No. 4, 1st Link Close on a 0.20 acre of land. The house was originally owned by the defendant, Dr. Felicia Aniooson. She put up the house for sale through an agent who was to link her up with prospective buyers.
The plaintiff, Victor Amefu expressed the desire to purchase the house. The agent took him to meet the defendant in her family house at Abossey Okai. Defendant however led the plaintiff, the agent and those who accompanied them to Mothers Inn at Kaneshie. The price of the house was discussed. While the defendant stated her final price at ¢400 million, plaintiff made an offer of ¢350 million. The meeting broke off. In the company of the plaintiff and the agent to the meeting at the Mothers Inn was one Riis Wuaku, a stepson of the defendant. The plaintiff alleging that he had paid ¢300 million to Riis Wuaku for and on behalf of the defendant, took possession and started remodelling it to suit his own taste. Apparently, defendant did not know of any such payment to Riis Wuaku and did not receive any money paid him by the plaintiff.
Evidence led at the trial showed that in the interaction between the plaintiff and Riis Wuaku, the former sold his car to the latter, Riis. Although Riis had not paid for the car, he took it away. When the plaintiff could not find Riis to collect his money, he fell on the defendant and her daughter Maama to assist him to locate Riis. It was only at this time that defendant got to hear from plaintiff that he had paid over ¢300 million for the house through Riis.
Defendant denied constituting the said Riis into an agent to collect any monies on her behalf. She also denied receiving any such payment from or through Riis. Defendant visited the house and found that the plaintiff had taken possession of it and started remodelling it for his personal occupation. She ordered the plaintiff to stop the remodelling because she had not sold the house to him. Meanwhile, the defendant assisted the plaintiff to arrest the said Riis Wuaku.
Defendant then asked the plaintiff to quit the house for her personal occupation. Rather than quit, plaintiff rented a three bedroom apartment for the defendant for two years at Adentan. According to the def