YAW OPPONG v. CHARLES ANARFI

AKOTO-BAMFO JSC:

Yaw Oppong, the respondent hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, commenced an action in the High Court against Charles Anarfi, the appellant now simply referred to as the defendant for this relief:

“An order for the defendant to yield vacant possession and hand over House No_ Plot 35 Block AB Patase, West Kumasi to the Plaintiff”.

Briefly ,the Plaintiffs case, as gleaned from the accompanying Statement of Claim, was that he purchased House no Plot 35 AB Patase, the subject matter of this appeal from the defendant at an agreed sum of GH¢40,000. According to him the transaction was reduced into writing; that even though the 6 month period granted the defendant to yield vacant possession expired; he remained in possession despite repeated demands.

The defendant resisted the Plaintiff’s claim. The gist of his case as per the Statement of Defence filed was that he sought financial assistance from the Plaintiff in the sum of GH¢40,000 cedis to recapitalize his 2nd hand clothing business. He used the house in issue as security. When, however, the Plaintiff’s agent produced a document supposedly evidencing the transaction for his signature, he realized it was a purchase agreement as opposed to the loan transaction. He protested but subsequently signed upon the assurances given by the agent that the terms of the agreement would not be enforced since they were good friends.

According to him, the disbursement of the loan was made in tranches and not one -time as asserted by the plaintiff. In the course of time, the Apagyahene had to intervene. He invited the Plaintiff for a discussion on the matter as a result of which the Plaintiff offered to take interest on the borrowed sum. The issues for determination before the High Court were:

1. Whether or not the house was sold to the Plaintiff

2. Whether House No_ 35, Block AB was used as a security for the grant of financial assistance

After a full trial, the learned High Court Judge found that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was a loan transaction and not a purchase agreement. He therefore entered judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff. After an expatiation of the principles of unjust enrichment, he delivered himself in these terms:

“I therefore order the defendant herein based on the principles above cited to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of GHc37000 to the plaintiff with interest at the prevailing Bank rate from the 6th of June when the amount was due to