WILLIAM KWAKYE & ANOTHER v. GLOBAL INVESTMENT GROUP
January 14, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ASARE KORANG, J.A.(PRESIDING)
- MARFUL SAU, J.A.
- OFOE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
January 14, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Court of Appeal panel (Presiding Judge Asare Korang, J.A., with Justices Marful Sau, J.A., and Victor D. Ofoe, J.A.) resolved a landlord‑tenant dispute over No. 6 Wolen Kojo Street Estate, Legon, Accra. The respondents offered a partially completed building to the appellant company on rental terms ($500 monthly for the first year; $2,500 monthly from years two to five), and the appellant took possession, completed the premises, and occupied since May 2003. After investigations at the Lands Commission revealed no executed lease, the appellant stopped paying rent and challenged title. Evidence showed the land was government‑owned, originally offered to Mrs. Dorothy Vardon; that respondents purchased Vardon’s interest and occupied since 1986; and that the Lands Commission later regularized respondents’ title by Exhibit F for a 99‑year term from 1 January 1986. Applying Order 4 rule 5(1) and the “feeds the estoppel” doctrine from Serwaah v. Nkrumah, the court rejected fraud allegations, deemed non‑joinder immaterial, characterized the counterclaim as unconscionable, and dismissed the appeal, affirming rent arrears and possession.
OFOE J.A: The plaintiffs/respondents, who I will in this judgment refer to as the respondents issued a writ against the defendant Company i.e. the appellants claiming:
“a. Recovery of rent arrears of ¢61,425,000 and mense profits till the date of judgment.
b. Recovery of possession of that premises known as No. 6 Wolen Kojo Street Estate, Legon, Accra for various breaches of covenant of agreement”.
The trial judge gave judgment to the respondents for these reliefs. The appellant aggrieved at the judgment has appealed against the judgment on 16 grounds expecting this court to set aside the entire judgment and give judgment to them on their counterclaim which I will quote presently. Most of the grounds of appeal run into each other I will prefer looking at the substance of the grounds filed treating those similar in substance together, rather than taking the grounds as numbered by the appellant. But before then a brief of the case of the parties which they put before the Honourable Circuit Judge.
The respondents offered their partially completed building to the appellant on rental. Appellant was to pay for the first year $500 a month and $2,500 a month from the 2nd year to the fifth year. Further increases were agreed upon. The appellant took over the premises, completed it to suit its use and indeed had been in occupation since May 2003. It would appear a misunderstanding concerning the execution of the agreement arose and this unfortunately eventually led to the appellant questioning the title of the respondents. This act of the appellant Company, according to its Managing Director, was because they found, after investigations at the Land Commission, that the respondents after all did not own the property as they claim. The land was still for the state. On the basis of this revelation, according to the Managing Director, they were advised to stop paying rent to the respondents and they did. For refusing to pay the rent, the respondents put the company before the trial circuit court claiming as earlier stated. The appellant also counterclaimed for:
“a. a declaration that land on which the house is built forms parts of government land which does not belong to the plaintiffs and accordingly prays for an order cancelling or nullifying the purported tenancy agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
b. An order directed to the Lands Commission of the Republic of Ghana that the said Commission allocates the land on which the house is built to the