ASARE AND ANOTHER VRS ODAMTTEN (CM/RPC/0614/2019) [2024] GHAHC 470 (21 October 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION (COURT 1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA, HELD ON MONDAY THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE SHEILA MINTA SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 1. CHRISTIAN B. ASARE - PLAINTIFFS 2. ADWOA A. KESSEY VRS. GEORGE OKPOTI ODAMTTEN - DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUGDMENT The Plaintiffs who are ordinarily resident abroad, issued a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 2nd April, 2019 against the Defendant for the following reliefs:- a. An order for the recovery of US$35,596.43, being the remaining balance due the Plaintiffs from the Defendant as at 19th February, 2019, in respect of the purchase price of a three-bedroom house and an outhouse situate at No. J12, Emefs Hillview Palace. b. Interest on the said sum at the prevailing interest rate from 20th February, 2019, till date of payment. c. An order for the recovery of US$5,000, being penal charge for the late payment as at 28th February, 2019. P a g e 1 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN d. An order for the recovery of US$5,000, being penal charge for the late payment as at 31st March, 2019. e. Cost on a full indemnity basis. f. Further or other reliefs as the Court may deem fit. The Defendant also filed his Statement of Defence on 19th June, 2019 and an Amended Statement of Defence on 31st May, 2021 in which he raised doubts about the validity of Plaintiffs’ title and that Plaintiffs through their representative failed to disclose the defect in the title to him and therefore not entitled to their balance or any other reliefs being sought in the Writ of Summons. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES CASE Briefly, the facts of the case as gleaned from the records are that the Plaintiffs through their representative, offered to the Defendant for the purchase of their 3-bedroom residential property No. J12 Emefs Hillview Palace which had previously been acquired by them from Emefs Construction Limited. This offer was done per a letter dated 25th October, 2018 (Exhibit “B”) which outlined the terms of payment with the contract sum being US$135,000.00. In the said offer letter, the Defendant was to make an initial deposit of US$100,000.00 within five (5) days of receipt and a further US$15,000.00 was to be made thirty (30) days of the initial deposit. The remaining US$20,000.00 was to be paid in 2 equal instalments of US$10,000.00, 30 days apart. The Defendant in Exhibit “C” wrote a letter to Plaintiffs’ representative P a g e 2 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN Mr. Kow Dadzie making counter proposals on how/when the initial US$100,000.00 would be paid after a deposit was paid. The Defendant then averred that because he was under immense pressure to secure alternative accommodation, he proceeded to accept the offer and wrote Exhibit “C” dated 25th October, 2018. According to the Defendant he made a further request for the payment of an initial commitment fee of US$10,000 – US$20,000 to be made to secure the property pursuant to the arrangement for the payment of the US$100,000.00. After the payment of the initial deposit of US$100,000 the Defendant failed to pay the outstanding US$35,000 with the excuse that the Plaintiffs have reneged on their obligations to provide Defendant with a written consent to assign the property to him from Emefs Construction and also failed to provide copies of documentation on same. The Defendant contended that the balance can only be paid after the Plaintiffs have fulfilled those obligations. Meanwhile the Defendant has since been in possession of the said property and remodeled same. In Exhibit “D” dated 19th January, 2019 Plaintiffs caused their Solicitor to write to Defendant demanding the outstanding balance of US$35,596.63 as payment of US$99,403.57 had been made. In response to this the Defendant also wrote Exhibit “E” dated 8th March, 2019 requesting the Plaintiffs to fulfil the obligations stated above. The Plaintiffs further tendered their Offer letter from Emefs Construction Limited in respect of the said property date 29th July, 2009 and a Deed of Assignment of P a g e 3 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN same dated 15th March, 2012 (Exhibit “G”). The Defendant also stated that some other persons have claimed to have adverse interest on the land on which the property is situate. That in a Suit attached as Exhibit “3” (Writ of Summons filed on 16th June, 2020) some 37 home owners in the Emefs Estate have instituted an action against Emefs Construction Limited as a result of the said adverse claim by some other persons. The said suit having remained unresolved disentitles the Defendant from their reliefs as he may be required to attorn tenancy to a third party. The Defendant in support of his case tendered Exhibits 1 and “2” (bank transfer on payment made and extract from Stanbic Bank on exchange and interest rates applicable). The Defendant did not counterclaim against the Plaintiffs. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF In the case of Takoradi Flour Mills vrs. Samir Fans [2005-200] SCGLR 882, the Supreme Court held that:- “It is sufficient to state that this being a civil suit, the rules of evidence require that the Plaintiff produces sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities as defined in Section 12 (2) of the NRCD 323. In assessing the balance of probabilities, all the evidence, be it that of the Plaintiff or the Defendant, must be considered and the party in whose favour the balance tilts is the person whose case is more probable of the rival versions and is deserving of a favourable verdict” P a g e 4 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN It is trite learning that the statutory provisions of the Evidence Decree 1975 NRCD 323 provided the burden of producing evidence is not fixed, but shifts from party to party at various states of the trial depending on the issues asserted or denied. See Adjetey Agbosu & Ors vrs Kotey & Ors [2003- 2004] SCGLR 420. For this reason, the apex Court stated that, if the Court has to make a determination of a fact or an issue, and that determination depends on evaluation of facts and evidence, the Defendant must realize that the determination cannot be made on nothing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held, if the Defendant desires the determination to be made in his favour, then he has a duty to help his own cause or case by adducing before the Court such facts or evidence that will induce the determination to be made in his favour. In the case of Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) vrs. Attorney General & Another [2012] 2 SCLR 845 the Court held at p. 867 that: “If a person goes to court to make an allegation, the onus is on him to lead evidence to prove that allegation, unless the allegation is admitted. If he fails to do that, the ruling on that allegation will go against him. Stated more explicitly, a party cannot win a case in court if the case is based on an allegation which he fails to prove or establish. This rule is further buttressed by section 17 (b) which, emphasizes on the party on whom lies the duty to start leading evidence…” P a g e 5 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN Having briefly discussed the law on the burden and standard of proof which the parties are to discharge in proof of their respective claims, I will now proceed to examine the issues set down for trial. ISSUES FOR TRIAL After pre-trial settlement talks broke down, the following issues were set down for trial:- 1. Whether or not the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs, per the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons. 2. Any other relevant issue(s) arising out of the pleadings. Before dealing with the issues above, the Court notes that the Defendant in his address sought to challenge the capacity of Ekow Dadzie to testify on behalf of Plaintiffs. Defendant’s argument is that Exhibit “A” being titled “General Power of Attorney” gave to the Donee limited power for the sale of the Plaintiffs’ said property and not to testify in these proceedings. The Defendant stated that Exhibit “A” being the Power of Attorney being relied on was neither witnessed nor stamped and therefore void. Suffice it to note that it is the sale that has led to the current suit for proceeds from sale, it will be needless to argue that the Donee cannot testify when the said document has not been tendered as the basis of the issuing of the Writ nor as a power of the Witness to testify in the name of another person. The Witness did not file the Writ based on the Power of Attorney. This contention is a red herring. Exhibit “A” not objected to when tendered as empowering the Witness to P a g e 6 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN conduct the sale and same accepted in evidence. It was by virtue of this same power that the Defendant acquired and took possession of the said property from the Plaintiffs and if same is defective, then per adventure the subsequent sale is also defective thus entitling the Plaintiffs to the recovery of possession of their property. However, that is not the discussion I want to go into. The action having been commenced in the names of the Plaintiffs, there is no rule of law which demands that the parties themselves testify in their suit. It is sufficient to prove their case through any witness who has first-hand information on the facts and issue at stake. Secondly, the Witness William Kow Dadzie did not require a Power of Attorney to testify in the matter for the Plaintiffs. See In Re Ahalley Botwe Lands; Adjei Agbosu vrs Kotey [2003- 2004] SCGLR 420, where the Supreme Court held thus:- “There was no rule of law stating that a party would succeed in his case if he testified at the trial.” Atuguba JSC (as he then was), in Musama Disco Christo Church vrs. Prophet Miritaiah Jona Jehu-Appiah, Civil Appeal No. J4/31/2012, Dated 11th November, 2015 (Unreported), stated: “I thought that the law has always been that any competent person with knowledge of the subject matter could give evidence for a party. And if it is the party himself who has tasked a knowledgeable person to testify for and on his behalf, nobody else has the right to challenge that. In other words, I have always thought that the party to a case has full liberty to decide who should P a g e 7 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN talk for him. . . . all the decided cases make it clear that a party need not testify by himself.” Again, in Armah V. Hydrafoam Estates (Gh.) Ltd. [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1551, the apex Court affirmed a decision where judgment was given for a Plaintiff who did not testify, relying only on the evidence of a surveyor who testified as a Court expert. Similarly, in Adjei Fio vrs. Mate Tesa [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1537, four of the five Plaintiffs who testified during the trial were found to lack capacity. The fifth Plaintiff, who had capacity, did not testify. The apex Court, aiming to do substantial justice, treated the evidence of the Plaintiffs who testified but lacked capacity as witnesses and relied on their testimonies to enter judgment for the fifth Plaintiff. Gbadegbe JSC held at holding 4 as follows: “On the question of the fifth Plaintiff-Respondent not tendering any evidence in the matter, the Supreme Court would hold that there is no obligation on a party litigant to personally testify in support of his case. The correct position is that a party may rely on the evidence of his witnesses, and when such evidence satisfies the evidential burden, as was found by the Court of Appeal, the failure to testify cannot by itself operate adversely against the evidence led in the matter.” Now the second issue being a non-issue and no other issue cries for resolution, I will proceed with the discussion on issue 1. ISSUE 1 P a g e 8 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN Whether or not the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, per the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons. It is not in doubt that the Plaintiffs through their representative and the Defendant entered into same Sale and Purchase Agreement for the sale of Plaintiffs’ 3 bedroom property in a gated community at Emefs Hillview Palace J12. There is evidence of an offer and acceptance of the said sale in various pieces of documents tendered in evidence being offer letter, response to the offer and evidence of some payment by Defendant into the Stanbic Account of William Kow Dadzie. On the payment made, whiles the Plaintiffs averred that they received $99,403.57 instead of the $100,000.00, the Defendant on the other hand posited that the whole of the $100,000.00 was paid to Plaintiffs. The evidence from the Bank records showed that payment was made in cedis and at the prevailing dollar rate at the time. The difference not being significant I will not waste time in discussion of same as the difference could have been as a result of the different rates used by the parties in their calculations. The parties again are not in agreement with the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of the said property. Whiles the Plaintiffs maintained that the documents of the property were to be handed over to Defendant only after payment of the full purchase price of US$135,000.00, the Defendant also claimed that same were to be handed over to him after the payment of the initial deposit of US$100,000.00. The Defendant has failed to pay the balance. The Defendant assert that subsequent to moving into possession there is P a g e 9 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN some adverse claim being made on the larger portion of where the estate and the property is situated and the Defendant is emboldened to say that he is not to pay the outstanding balance on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have a defective title and may have to attorn tenancy to whoever is eventually declared legal owners of the land on which the property is situated. A purchaser is expected to act with reasonable caution, conducting proper inquiries into and investigating any matters that may affect the property before purchase. This principle was well reiterated in the case of Boateng vrs. Dwinfuor [1979] GLR 360, where the Court held that a purchaser is deemed to have notice of all matters which a reasonably prudent purchaser would have discovered through proper due diligence. At the time of the purchase the Defendant knew that Emefs Construction sold the said property to Plaintiffs. From the evidence before the Court there was some arrangement between the parties for the sale of the Plaintiffs’ property founded on Emefs title to the Defendant. There are pieces of documents before the Court that speak to this arrangement being Exhibits “B” “D” and Exhibit “1”. It is not in doubt that an offer was made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant specifically per the conditions in Exhibit “B” which culminated in the Defendant writing Exhibit “C” and a subsequent payment of the initial deposit by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs. In Exhibit “C” the Defendant stated exactly the address of the Plaintiffs’ representative as stated in Exhibit “B”. The P a g e 10 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN Defendant submitted to the Court that by the mere reason that Exhibit “B” as tendered was unsigned, the Court should not give effect to same. However, the Defendant does not challenge a term of the said offer letter like the contract price but seeks to challenge the other terms as to how the balance was to be paid. The Plaintiffs’ case is that the offer was based on Exhibit “B” and upon payment of the initial deposit there was a valid agreement between the parties based on Exhibit “B”. What is entailed in Exhibit? I will hereunder reproduce same:- “George Okpoti Odamtten Neopor System Plot No.9, Tema Abronkase, Comm 9, Tema Dear George Okpoti Odamtten Offer Letter for three Bedroom house at Emefs Hillview Palace J12. I William Kow Dadzie acting by power of Attorney given by Christian B Asare and Adwoa A Kessey, hereby offer for sale their three bedroom airconditioned house with water heater and an outhouse number J12 located at Emefs Hillview Palace for sale for $135,000.00 (One hundred & thirty-five thousand US Dollars) under the following terms and conditions: P a g e 11 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN a) An initial deposit of $100,000.00 (One hundred thousand US Dollars) to be paid within five days from receipt of this offer letter. b) A second payment of $15,000.00 (Fifteen thousand US Dollars) at the end of the thirty days from the initial deposit payment of $100,000.00. c) A third payment of $10,000.00 (Ten thousand US dollars at the end of thirty days from the second payment. d) A fourth payment of $10,000.00 (Ten thousand US dollars) at the end of thirty days from the third payment. Failure to make payments as per the agreed terms and conditions will result in a penalty of $5,000.00 (five thousand US dollars) extra at the end of each thirty day period. Conflicts will be resolved by amicable settlement within thirty days of notice failing which each may seek legal redress. All the relevant transfer and title documents will be made available upon final payment of the agreed amount based on the terms and conditions listed above and Emefs Ltd the Estate developer will be duly notified.” It is in response to this that the Defendant wrote Exhibit “C” on 25th October, 2018 where he stated among others thus:- “The above and several Correspondence on the above refers. P a g e 12 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN As communicated, I wish to reiterate interest in the purchase of the above property and making arrangement to pay a deposit to demonstrate my commitment as requested by your good self. We are discussing the earliest timeline possible, since our financial parties has indicated Twenty-one (21) working days for the transfer process. One initial arrangement was to pay up to one hundred Thousand (USD100,000.00). However, if you could allow us to make a commitment between USD Ten to Twenty Thousand (USD 10,000 – 20,000) and will not touch the property until we have come up with the agreed amount of (USD 100,000). I trust these terms would be acceptable” Beyond this letter the Defendant did not produce evidence of the “several correspondence” on the sale of this property as alleged and no other agreed terms can be inferred. Rather the Defendant is alleging that the said offer letter as tendered did not have the signature of William Kow Dadzie on it so same should be disregarded. If that analysis is tenable, then what was the Defendant responding to in its response? Clearly the Court cannot disregard this crucial piece of evidence as its duty is to look at all the pieces of evidence and the circumstances surrounding the transaction and come to a reasonable and just conclusion. P a g e 13 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN In paragraph 4 of the Defendant’s amended Statement of Defence, he averred as follows:- “Defendant in further answer to paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 says that the said William Kow Dadzie sent him an offer letter in the course of negotiations but the terms were not agreed on by the parties.” Having admitted that he received the offer letter and without evidence that the other terms were not agreed upon one can only infer that the Plaintiffs’ offer was accepted per the terms contained therein. It is not the duty of the Court to read meanings into what parties have agreed upon especially when such arrangements are in writing. It is trite that the intention of a written instrument must be gathered from the written expression of the author’s intention. See Biney vrs. Biney [1974] 1 GLR 318. Exhibits “B” and “C” did not suffer from any absurdities or ambiguous interpretation that would warrant any other meaning to be read into it and the Courts are also not allowed to introduce new terms into agreements of parties. In Chitty on Contracts (22nd Ed.) Vol. 1 paragraph 62 page 30 cited by Counsel for the Plaintiffs the Learned author stated; “Two main rules govern the acceptance of an offer. The first must be positive evidence which the court may infer acceptance … this may consist in words, in writing or in conduct.” The Defendant has not provided evidence before this Court that he did not agree with the terms as contained in the offer made by the Plaintiffs. Indeed, generally, the law is to the effect that where a party to a civil suit raises issues P a g e 14 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN that are essential to the success of his assertion, he assumes the onus of proof, whether it is the plaintiff who asserts a fact or the defendant who makes an assertion. In the case of Majolagbe v. Larbi & Others (1959) GLR 190 - 195 at 192, Ollenu, J, quoting his earlier judgment in the unreported case of Khoury and Anor. v. Richter (1958) stated that “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means ...”, which by sections 11(1) and (4) of The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) (hereinafter, the “Evidence Act”), requires that party to “… introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue” and the evidence provided must be sufficient to enable a reasonable mind conclude “… that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence”. The Defendant is making an invitation to the Court to disregard Exhibit “B” which is the offer letter made to the Defendant on the ground that same was not signed but conceded to an offer made to him in paragraph 7 of his Witness Statement stated as follows:- 7. Per the terms of the said offer letter, the property was offered for sale at US$135,000.00, with an initial deposit of US$100,000.00 and the balance of US$35,000.00 to be paid as follows:- a. $15,000.00 at the end of the 30 thirty days from the initial deposit of $100,000.00. b. $10,000.00 at the end of 30 days from the second payment. c. $10,000.00 at the end of thirty days from the third payment. Clearly this is contained in Exhibit “B” which was the basis of the arrangement between the parties for which an acceptance was made by the P a g e 15 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN Defendant in Exhibit “C” which Exhibit contains the same terms apart from the payment of penal interest term. There is evidence of an offer made by the Plaintiffs for the sale of the property which was accepted by the Defendant and partly performed. The Court in looking for the objective intention of the parties, it considers what a reasonable man will infer from what is both written and the conduct of the parties. See P.Y. Atta & Sons Ltd vrs. Kingsman Enterprises Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR 946. The apex Court said:- “The paramount consideration was what the parties themselves intended or desired to be contained in the agreement. The intentions should prevail at all times. The general rule was that a document should be given its ordinary meaning if the terms used therein were clear and unambiguous. At the time the acceptance was made no mention was made by the Defendant of the subsequent and final payments being dependent upon the Plaintiffs furnishing him with title deeds. It is a gated community with several other homeowners and the Defendant took it for granted and failed to conduct a search at the Land Commission to ascertain legal ownership nor made a request for registered titled deeds during their negotiations. The sale of land requires due diligence to be conducted by the purchaser and this it appears the Defendant failed to do. Accra lands fraught with various P a g e 16 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN challenges, with ownership sometimes moving from one family or stool to the other sometimes without the knowledge of persons in actual possession. From the evidence before me, I cannot come to a safe conclusion that the Defendant has been able to convince the Court that he did not agree with the terms of Plaintiffs as contained in the offer letter. And per the agreed terms full payment ought to have been made long ago for the transfer to be made, even before the adverse claim was made. The adverse claim that necessitated the issuance of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim by some home owners including Plaintiffs against Emefs Construction sometime in 2020 is noteworthy but does not whittle down one bit, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiffs in the assignment or sale to the Defendant of the Plaintiffs’ interest in the three Bedroom house at Emefs Hillview Palace J12. The Plaintiffs are in Court to have their outstanding balance, and the Defendant is still enjoying quite possession of the property. The least the Defendant can do is to pay up the balance to empower him stand in the shoes of the Plaintiffs over the matter relating to the adverse claim being made. Is the Plaintiff entitled to all the Reliefs From the discussions above the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the balance due Plaintiffs in the sum of US$35,000.00 in view of my finding that the US$596.43 was more of an exchange problem. I further grant interest on the said US$35,000.00 at the prevailing commercial bank rate of interest on the dollar from 20th February 2019 till date of judgment. Having awarded P a g e 17 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN interest on the said sum, I am unable to award penal late payment on the outstanding sum as Plaintiffs have been compensated by the award of interest. CONCLUSION The Plaintiffs have been able to prove that the Defendant owes Plaintiffs the outstanding balance and the Defendant on the other had has been unable to prove his assertions that can constitute reasonable defence to the Plaintiffs’ claims. Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant as follows:- a. Recovery of the sum of US$35,000.00 being the remaining balance due the Plaintiffs from the Defendant from the sale of Plaintiffs’ property J12, Emefs Hillview Palace. b. Interest on the said sum at the prevailing commercial bank rate of interest on the dollar from 20th February 2019 till date of judgment. c. Cost of Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHS20,000.00) is awarded in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant. SHEILA MINTA, J. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT P a g e 18 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN REPRESENTATION: PARTIES: PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM KOW DADZIE DEFENDANT – ABSENT COUNSEL: KWAME AKYIANU FOR PLAINTIFFS – PRESENT EDEM MENKA HOLDING BRIEF FOR ALFRED BANNERMAN WILLIAMS JNR. FOR DEFENDANT – PRESENT AUTHORITIES: 1. TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS VRS. SAMIR FANS [2005-200] SCGLR 882 2. ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS VRS KOTEY & ORS [2003-2004] SCGLR 420. 3. OKUDZETO ABLAKWA (NO. 2) VRS. ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOTHER [2012] 2 SCLR 845 4. IN RE AHALLEY BOTWE LANDS; ADJEI AGBOSU VRS KOTEY [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 5. MUSAMA DISCO CHRISTO CHURCH VRS. PROPHET MIRITAIAH JONA JEHU-APPIAH, CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2012, DATED 11TH NOVEMBER, 2015 (UNREPORTED) 6. ARMAH V. HYDRAFOAM ESTATES (GH.) LTD. [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1551 7. ADJEI FIO VRS. MATE TESA [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1537 P a g e 19 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN 8. BOATENG VRS. DWINFUOR [1979] GLR 360 9. BINEY VRS. BINEY [1974] 1 GLR 318 10. MAJOLAGBE V. LARBI & OTHERS (1959) GLR 190 - 195 AT 192 11. P.Y. ATTA & SONS LTD VRS. KINGSMAN ENTERPRISES LTD [2007-2008] SCGLR 946 12. SECTIONS 11(1) AND (4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1975 (NRCD 323) P a g e 20 | 20 SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0614/2019 – CHRISTIAN B. ASARE & ANOR. VS. GEORGE O. ODAMTTEN