JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.A.
On 24 July 1990, this court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and reserved its reasons. I now proceed to give reasons why my vote was cast for its dismissal. This is an appeal against the judgment of his Honour Judge Aryeetey sitting at the Circuit Court, Akim Oda dismissing the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim as indorsed on the writ of summons is for "the redemption of his house No. A/76, situate lying and being at Bawdua."
The plaintiff’s case is that during the "Aliens Compliance Order", a period when aliens without proper documentation and residence permit were asked to leave the country, he pledged the said house to the defendant for ¢60. Later, he went to the defendant and sought financial assistance. The amount involved in this second transaction was ¢160. Before his departure to Niger the defendant asked him for a receipt to cover both transactions. The defendant took him to a letter-writer at Akwatia. This fellow prepared a document which he thumbprinted. Although he spent four more months in Ghana before leaving for Niger, the defendant never gave him a copy of the document he executed. After nine years stay in Niger, he returned and approached the defendant with a view to redeeming his property but after dilly-dallying for a while, the defendant claimed the house was sold to him for ¢200. The plaintiff reported the matter to the police. The defendant produced a document he said evidenced the sale of the house by the plaintiff to him. The plaintiff therefore decided to bring an action in the courts to redeem his property from the pledge.
At the trial, the plaintiff claimed the document executed by him and relied upon by the defendant was never read and explained to him before he made his mark. In support of his case, the plaintiff called one Dandekwei Zabrama who accompanied him to the letter-writer and was one of the attesting witnesses. This witness supported the plaintiff's claim that the document was not read over and interpreted to them.
I will say that the evidence of the plaintiff in court is markedly different from his pleaded case which was that he pledged the house [p.225] to the defendant for ¢200; not ¢60 as stated by him in his evidence in court. The evidence in court would have brought the total amount involved and covered by the document to ¢220.
The defendant's case was that the house in question was sold to him by the plaintiff for a consideration of ¢200 and that a document evidencing
