|
_______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs by their writ of
summons, accompanied by a
Statement of Claim issued on 16th
December, 2009 claimed the
following from the Defendant.
I.
Recovery of the sum of
US$30,000.00 being the purchase
price of the two plots of land
at East Airport.
II.
Interest at the prevailing bank
rate from the 30th of
April 2006.
III.
Damages for breach of Contract.
IV.
Cost.
The Plaintiffs case as disclosed
in their Statement of Claim is
that the Plaintiffs accepted an
offer from the Defendant to buy
two plots of land within the
Mariville Estates in East
Airport at the price of
US$30,000.00. These plots were
paid for on 10th day
of March, 2004, and plots
numbers 130 and 131 were
assigned to them per receipt
number 0000116.
When the Plaintiffs wanted to
take possession of the plots
allocated to them, the Defendant
offered to reallocate them onto
a new plot, and issued them with
a site plan covering those
plots, and a sublease dated 30th
September, 2005. Before the
Plaintiffs could take over these
plots, the Defendant relocated
the Plaintiffs by a new site
plan dated 30th
April, 2006, but even here the
Defendant could not formalized
the document on the plots. The
Plaintiff then issued this writ.
As the Defendant could not be
served personally, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs leave to
serve the Defendant by
substitution and same was
granted.
On 12th April, 2010,
Judgment was entered against the
Defendant for the sum of
US$30,000.00 together with
interest at the prevailing
dollar rate. Interlocutory
Judgment was also entered for
the Plaintiffs in respect of
relief III. On 28th
June, 2010, the Plaintiffs
proved damages through Dina Vera
Keteku, who had been given a
power of Attorney by the
Plaintiffs to prosecute the case
against the Defendant on their
behalf.
Since Judgment had already been
entered against the Defendant,
what is left to be assessed is
the level of damages that will
restore the Plaintiffs to what
they had lost as a result of the
failure by the Defendant to
specifically perform the
contract, and also what they
have lost in their effort to get
the contract enforced.
The plots were priced in dollars
and the payments were also made
in dollars. On 12th
April 2010, the Motions Court
ordered the refund of the money
in Dollars plus interest at
Dollars rate. Exhibit ‘B’ shows
that the payment was made on 10th
March, 2004 but the Plaintiffs
asked for interest from 30th
April, 2006. I therefore order
that the US$30,000.00 should
attract interest from 30th
April 2006.
Since the Plaintiff did not lead
any evidence on the prevailing
Dollar price of plots within the
same area, or within areas
comparable with where the plots
in dispute were located, the
Court is disabled from making an
award with regard to what the
Plaintiffs have lost as a result
of the inability of the
Defendant to perform the
contract specifically. The
prevailing Dollar interest rate
on the US$30,000.00 may be
adequate to compensate the
Plaintiffs on the payments made
to the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs Attorney gave
evidence that the Plaintiffs had
to come to Ghana several times
from the United States of
America because of the plots.
As to how many times that they
had to come to Ghana from United
States of America, it was not
mentioned. How much it also
caused them to travel to Ghana
from United States of America
has not also been mentioned.
These expenses could have been
proved if they really existed.
Again even if they came to Ghana
from the United States of
America, was it only in respect
of these plots or for other
reasons? Could they not have
given power of Attorney to
anybody as they have done now?
The Plaintiffs might have
travelled to Ghana but that
might have been for other
reasons including the allocation
of the plots. Not knowing how
much it might have caused the
Plaintiffs especially with
regard to the plot, I make an
award of GH¢5,000.00 as general
damages to compensate the
Plaintiffs for their travels and
telephone calls in, connection
with their efforts to recover
their plots from the Defendant.
There is also evidence before
the Court that an amount of GH¢500.00
was paid for the sublease. This
was paid on 10th
March, 2004. This must also be
refunded to the Plaintiff with
interest from 10th
March, 2004.
With regard to the cost, the
Plaintiff gave evidence that
they served the Defendant by
substitution by publishing it in
the Ghanaian Times at the cost
of GH¢1094.48, and may have to
serve the Judgment on the
Defendant by the same method.
Taking into accounts legal and
filing fee, I award cost of GH¢7,000.00
in favour of the Plaintiffs.
In summary, I enter Judgment for
the Plaintiffs as follows:
a)
The refund of the sum of
US$30,000.00 with prevailing
Dollar rate of interest from 30th
April, 2006.
b)
The refund of the sum of GH¢500.00
with current inters rate from 10th
March, 2004.
c)
General damages of GH¢5,000.00
for breach of contract.
d)
The Plaintiff is awarded cost of
GH¢7,000.00.
Counsel:
Naa Odofoley Narty for Plaintiff
(SGD.)
MR. JUSTICE S.H. OCRAN
(Justice of the
High Court)
|
