ANDOH VRS. DEY (GR/KB/CCT/A11/29/2023) [2024] GHACC 362 (24 April 2024)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court determines if the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract. The defendant was required to transfer ownership upon final payment, which the plaintiff completed. The defendant did not execute the transfer, thus failing to perform his contractual duties.
• The court assesses whether a valid contract exists between the plaintiff and defendant for the sale of the property located at Ashongman Estates, Accra. The existence of the contract is confirmed by Exhibits 'B' and 'C', which include offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, and capacity of the parties. The court finds that the contract is valid and enforceable.
• The court considers if the defendant communicated the breach and requested a refund. The defendant filed a writ of summons in Madina Court but failed to provide evidence of service to the plaintiff. The court finds that the defendant did not effectively communicate the breach.
• The court evaluates if the plaintiff is entitled to an order for specific performance. The contract's essential terms (subject-matter, price, parties) are established, and the plaintiff has paid the full price. The court decrees specific performance, compelling the defendant to execute the transfer and provide vacant possession.
• The court examines if the plaintiff fulfilled his contractual obligations or breached the sales agreement. The plaintiff paid the full amount of GH¢490,000.00 as per Exhibits 'B' and 'C', while the defendant claimed an oral agreement for GH¢520,000.00 within three months. The court rules that the plaintiff performed his part, and the defendant is estopped from alleging breach due to accepting payments beyond the three-month period.
• The court assesses if the plaintiff breached the agreement. The defendant alleged an oral agreement for payments within three months, but the plaintiff paid the full amount over a longer period. The court finds no breach by the plaintiff and notes the defendant's acceptance of payments beyond the three-month period.
• The court examines if the defendant informed the plaintiff about property occupation. The defendant did not prove an agreement on the three-month payment plan and failed to provide timely notification of renting the property. The plaintiff was informed of the occupation only when demanding possession.

Holdings

• The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's request for specific performance, compelling the defendant to transfer the property's ownership and provide vacant possession by 8th May 2024.
• The court found that a valid contract exists between the plaintiff and defendant for the sale of the property at Ashongman Estates, as evidenced by exhibits B and C, confirming the presence of offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, and party capacity.
• The plaintiff fulfilled his contractual obligations by paying the full purchase price of GH¢490,000.00, and the defendant is estopped from claiming breach due to accepting payments beyond the alleged three-month period.
• The defendant did not effectively communicate the alleged breach to the plaintiff, as the writ of summons was not proven to have been served.
• The defendant failed to perform his contractual duty by not transferring ownership of the property to the plaintiff after receiving the full payment.
• The defendant did not inform the plaintiff about someone occupying the property due to the alleged breach, only mentioning it when demanding possession.

Remedies

• Costs of Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵10,000.00) awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
• General Damages of Twenty Thousand Cedis (GH₵20,000.00) awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
• An order for specific performance of the contract for the sale of the property at Ashongman Estates, Accra, requiring the defendant to give vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff not later than 8th May 2024.
• An order directed at the defendant to prepare and execute the transfer document(s) in favour of the plaintiff not later than 8th May 2024.

Contract Value

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The defendant was found estopped by his conduct from claiming the purchase price was to be paid by November 2021, as he accepted payments beyond this period, including on 3rd August 2022.
• The standard of proof required in civil cases was established as 'preponderance of probabilities,' as referenced in ADWUBENG V DOMFEH [1996-97] SCGLR 660. The court applied this standard to assess the evidence.
• The court acknowledged the plaintiff's full payment of GH¢490,000.00 as valid consideration, fulfilling the plaintiff's contractual obligations and supporting the enforceability of the agreement.
• The court relied on the principle that documentary evidence (Exhibits B and C) should prevail over conflicting oral testimony, as per DUAH V YORKWA [1993-94] 1GLR 217, to determine the purchase price and enforce the contract.
• The existence of a valid contract was confirmed through written documents (Exhibits B and C) that demonstrated offer, acceptance, consideration, and party capacity, meeting the legal requirements for a binding agreement.
• The court emphasized that the party who asserts a claim must prove it, citing Section 11, 12, and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975. This principle was central to evaluating both the plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim.

Precedent Name

• NDOLEY v. IDDRISU
• DUAH V YORKWA
• ACKAH V PERGAH TRANSPORT LIMITED
• DONKOR V ALHASSAN
• T.K. SERBEH & CO LTD V MENSAH
• ADWUBENG V DOMFEH

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• The court analyzed whether the parties agreed on a payment schedule of GH¢520,000 in three months (defendant's claim) or GH¢490,000 with no specified timeframe (plaintiff's claim). Documentary evidence (Exhibits B and C) confirmed the revised price of GH¢490,000 and no written timeframe, estopping the defendant from enforcing the oral three-month term.
• The court found the defendant breached the contract by failing to execute property transfer documents despite acknowledging receipt of the full purchase price (GH¢490,000) as evidenced by Exhibits B and C. This obligation was central to the contract terms.
• The defendant alleged the plaintiff breached the oral agreement by delaying payments beyond three months. However, the court ruled the plaintiff fulfilled obligations by paying GH¢490,000, and the defendant's acceptance of payments beyond November 2021 estopped him from claiming breach or termination.

Cited Statute

• DONKOR V ALHASSAN [1987-88] 2 GLR 253-259
• T.K. SERBEH & CO LTD V MENSAH (2005-2006) SCGLR 341
• Evidence Act, 1975
• ADWUBENG V DOMFEH [1996-97] SCGLR 660
• ACKAH V PERGAH TRANSPORT LIMITED [2010] SCGLR 729
• DUAH V YORKWA [1993-94] 1GLR 217
• NDOLEY v. IDDRISU [1979] GLR 559-565

Judge Name

Passage Text

• On the facts of the instant case, the first three requirements had been met... the court can enforce the contract.
• I find that plaintiff has performed his part of the contract... In effect, I find that plaintiff has not breached any sales and purchase agreement.
• The conditions for a valid contract were in existence, in that there was offer and acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration and the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract. This is confirmed by Exhibits 'B' and 'C' as tendered by plaintiff and there would be no need to elaborate on same.

Damages / Relief Type

• Costs of GH₵10,000.00 awarded
• Order for specific performance of the contract and vacant possession by 8th May 2024
• Order to prepare and execute transfer documents by 8th May 2024
• General Damages of GH₵20,000.00 awarded