MRS. VERONICA SARHENE AND MRS. MARY ATTA SIAW vs. EDWARD NASSAR & CO. LTD. & ORS. AND PAUL OTCHERE & 14 ORS. [2019]DLSC6577

MRS. VERONICA SARHENE AND MRS. MARY ATTA SIAW vs. EDWARD NASSAR & CO. LTD. & O... [2019]DLSC6577

Date	2019-07-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/18/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6577

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING)

GBADEGBE JSC

BENIN JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

PAUL ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

KWAME ADOM-APPIAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

SULLEY SAMBIAN FOR THE CO-DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS

[2019]DLSC6577
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MRS. VERONICA SARHENE AND MRS. MARY
ATTA SIAW&nbsp;(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EDWARD NASSAR &amp; CO. LTD. &amp; ORS.
(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS) AND PAUL OTCHERE &amp; 14 ORS. (CO-DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/18/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 24TH JULY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PAUL ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>KWAME ADOM-APPIAH FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SULLEY SAMBIAN FOR THE
CO-DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE JSC, BENIN
JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BAFFOE –BONNIE, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>We
wish to place on record from the very onset that we find no merit in the appeal
and therefore dismiss same. We believe that the judgment of the Court of Appeal
discussed the very essential issues and more, and came to the right
conclusions. We therefore see this short write up as confirming the very
unassailable judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>This
case commenced in the High Court, Kumasi on 12th October, 1998 and
for more than twenty years it is still pending in the courts as the
co-defendants have appealed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated
19th October, 2016. This is a sad narrative of the manner we deliver
justice to law abiding parties who seek redress from our courts, particularly
in a case such as this one which is quite straight forward. We hope that this
delivery will signal the end of a matter which we believe could have been
curtailed by resort to legal arguments.<o:p></o:p>The
essential facts of the case are contained in documents tendered at the trial to
be found in the record of appeal and not subject to serious contestation. The
co-defendants were sitting tenants in landed property at Kumasi popularly
called Edward Nassar Supermarket, owned by the 1st defendant. In 1997 the 1st
defendant offered the property for sale through Merchant Bank (Ghana) Ltd. The
plaintiffs purchased the property on terms contained in an agreement for sale
dated 11th February, 1998 and paid the purchase price to Merchant
Bank (Ghana) Ltd. Upon this, the 1st defendant applied to the Lands
Commission, Kumasi for consent to formally assign the property to them and same
was granted on 29th April, 1998. Thereafter, the 1st
defendant notified the co-defendants that plaintiffs were the new owners of the
property so thenceforth, they should deal with them. <o:p></o:p>The
co-defendants took objection to the sale and in a letter dated 11th
June, 1998 their lawyer wrote to the 1st defendant to protest,
claiming that they were supposed to have been given the first option to
purchase the property. In a response dated 21st July, 1998 the 1st
defendant stated that the tenants were all along aware that the property was
being sold but made no serious effort to purchase it. 1st defendant however
purported to re-open the sale of the property to accommodate the co-defendants,
but when Merchant Bank (Ghana) Ltd were contacted, they informed the
co-defendants that the property had been sold already and there was nothing
anyone could do to reverse the sale except the plaintiffs consented to it. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs however held to their purchase and demanded that the draft
assignment for which the Lands Commission had given consent be sealed by the 1st
defendant to them. Strangely, the keeper of the seal of 1st
defendant refused to seal the deed of assignment, wherefore plaintiffs sued in the
High Court for specific performance, recovery of possession and perpetual
injunction. The co-defendants applied and were joined to the case. The High
Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and the co-defendants appealed
but lost in the Court of Appeal and they have further appealed to the Supreme
Court.<o:p></o:p>We
have read closely the judgment of the Court of Appeal and are satisfied that it
&nbsp;answered competently and comprehensively,
all the grounds of dissatisfaction the co-defendants had with the judgment of
the trial court. <o:p></o:p>The
central issue in this case is a very narrow one and it is; whether the
co-defendants, as sitting tenants, had a right of first option of purchase at
the time the property was bought by the plaintiffs? As the Court of Appeal
rightly held, there is no common law right of a sitting tenant to be given
first option when the landlord decides to sell the property. Such right can
only be conferred by agreement between the tenant and the landlord or by
statute. Incidentally this erroneous proposition of the law is held by many
practitioners of the law.<o:p></o:p>In
the statement of case of the co-defendants at page 12 they stated as follows;<o:p></o:p>“….the
appellants were asked by the 1st defendant company to assist
financially to renew the expired lease, so as to enable them, as tenants to
continue to occupy the premises and this the appellants obliged, </main>