[1993]DLCA4325January 21, 1993Court of Appeal

COFIE vs. SHAHIN AND OTHERS

The appellant/plaintiff, owner of land at Osu/Christianborg, Accra, leased the land to the 1st respondent under a lease dated 28 August 1972, registered as No. 2354/73. She later sought to set aside or modify the lease under section 18 of the Conveyancing Decree, 1973 (NRCD 175), alleging that the transaction was unconscionable; alternatively, she contended that on a true construction the lease was for ten years certain. The evidence accepted by the courts showed that what was leased was substantially vacant land with only a temporary structure, which the lessee was to remove and thereafter build upon. The lessee and subsequent assignees developed the property, and the appellant later accepted further advance rent in 1981 covering a period up to 2002. The central controversy was whether, in all the circumstances, the lease terms—particularly the rent and duration—were unconscionable. Portion relied on: “The plaintiff, by her amended writ of summons claims under the Conveyancing Decree 1973 NRCD 175… ‘An order to set aside or in the alternative to modify the lease agreement… on the ground of unconscionability…’”; and “It seems to me that the duration of the lease… is the main bone of contention between the parties.”

read more

ESSIEM JA. This is an appeal from the judgment of Dove J, delivered on 23 January 1991. The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgment of the court below and I reproduce the same. The plaintiff, by her amended writ of summons claims under the Conveyancing Decree 1973 (NRCD 175): “(1) An order to set aside or in the alternative to modify the lease agreement registered as No 2354/73 dated 28 August 1972 and executed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on the ground of unconscionability. (2) Alternatively the lease agreement dated 28 August 1972 between plaintiff and the 1st defendant was for ten years certain upon a true construction of the document.” The plaintiff is the owner of the disputed land at Osu. She claims to have put up a building on it up to roofing level and had fenced it; she granted a lease of the land with the uncompleted building to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant completed the building commenced by the plaintiff and subsequently assigned his i...