WEST CROWN INVESTMENT CO. LTD. v. EDMOND ADOM MALM & ANOTHER
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KANYOKE, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J.A.
- WELBOURNE(MRS), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff appealed after the dismissal of his claim that the 1st defendant interfered with his construction project and other related breaches of a lease and subsequent consent judgment. The court dismissed several grounds of the appeal, affirming that the 1st defendant did not interfere with construction, the consent judgment overrode lease terms, and the plaintiff's part performance did not prevent the 1st defendant's re-entry rights under the consent judgment.
ACQUAYE, J. A.
The plaintiff/appellant issued a writ of summons in the High Court, Accra claiming:
1. An order to restrain the 1st Defendant from interfering with the construction of the shop on property No. 155, Atomic Road, Haatso in Accra.
2. An order for the 2nd Defendant to stop paying any money to the 1st Defendant.
3. A declaration that the 2nd defendant pays any money to the 1st defendant at his own risk.The plaintiffs case was that on 1st January 2006 he signed an agreement with the 1st defendant by which he leased the frontage of 1st defendants house at Haatso in Accra in order to build a 10 room store house within two (2) years.
After construction of the storerooms the plaintiff would give to the 1st defendant one storeroom on the ground floor and another room on the first floor for 1st defendants use.
The lease was to last for 35 years after which the store house would revert to the 1st defendant.As at July 2009 the plaintiff had completed the shops on the ground floor and had given the 1st defendant possession of one store.
On 10th July 2008 the 1st defendants lawyer wrote to the plaintiff complaining of the plaintiffs failure to complete the construction of the storerooms within the two years stipulated in the leasehold agreement and gave him four months to rectify the breach.
The plaintiff complained that his failure to complete the project within time was due to the necessity to obtain the requisite building permits and the 1st defendant and his son interfering in the plaintiffs efforts to obtain pre-financing of the project from prospective tenants.
When the plaintiff sued in 2009 for his claims the defendants denied interfering with the payments of rent advances by the plaintiffs prospective tenants but complained of the plaintiffs failure to complete the construction of the 10 storerooms within two (2) years
thus depriving him of the use of the second storeroom.
The 1st defendant counterclaimed for a declaration that the plaintiff was in breach of the lease agreement and an order for the 1st defendant to re-enter the property.Before hearing of the suit commenced the parties negotiated and filed terms of settlement on 21st January 2011 which was adopted as consent judgment by the trial court.
The terms of settlement as entered by the trial court on 24th January 2011 were 1. Plaintiff shall continue and complete the construction of the stores and offices within two years from the date of filing these terms of settlement.
2\