WILLIAM ASHITEY ARMAH v. HYDRAFOAM ESTATES (GH) LTD

BENIN JSC,:-

In or about the year 1997, the plaintiff/respondent/appellant, hereinafter called the appellant, sold a tract of land situate at a place called Okpoi Gonno in Accra, measuring 16.08 acres to the defendant/appellant/respondent, hereinafter called the respondent. The appellant claimed the land consisted of sixty-four plots but according to the respondent it comprised just twenty-two plots. The parties agree that the respondent paid for twenty-two plots of land at an agreed fee of two million old cedis per plot. Thus according to the appellant forty-two plots still remained unpaid for, whereas the respondent’s contention was that since the land sold comprised twenty-two plots excluding the open spaces and a school site set aside by the city planning authorities they had fully paid for the land. This was the state of the pleadings. The appellant issued the writ of summons on 12th April 2007 seeking the following reliefs against the respondent:

1. An order for the recovery of possession of the remaining forty-two unpaid for plots of land forming part of the lease registered as AR 3590B/97 and with No. 1636/1998 and stamped as LVB 5716B/98.

2. In the alternative an order that the defendant pay for the remaining forty-two plots of land at the agreed price of the cedi equivalent of ten thousand dollars per plot at the exchange rate prevailing at date of payment.

3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assigns, privies, successors in title from interfering with, building on or having anything, whatsoever to do with the remaining unpaid for forty-two plots of land ……..

At the close of pleadings the appellant took out summons for directions in which he proposed ten issues. The respondent did not file additional issues. The record shows that both counsel agreed to take only one issue in resolution of the entire dispute and the court concurred in that agreement. The only issue set down for trial was what value to place on the land, which from the record was the value of the remaining 42 plots. The trial court judge appointed a professional valuation firm to carry out the exercise with an option to the parties to appoint their own valuation expert. Subsequently the court appointed a surveyor to undertake a survey of the land indicating any portion that remained vacant.

The court appointed experts carried out their assignments and submitted their reports. These experts testified as court witnesses and were cross examined by bo