Continental Terminal Ltd Vrs Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority and Others [2014] GHASC 155 (15 May 2014)

Continental Terminal Ltd Vrs Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority and Others [2014] GHASC 155 (15 May 2014)

The defendant did not comply with the mandatory statutory procedure for re-entry under section 29 of the Conveyancing Act, as no proper notice was served and no opportunity to remedy the breach was given. The purported re-entry was therefore unlawful, and the plaintiff's action for relief against forfeiture was premature. Damages awarded for unlawful entry were not justified as there was no evidence of actual re-entry.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 155
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Continental Terminal Limited; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority; Defendant/respondent: James Ben Gaise; Defendant/respondent: Richard Deih
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim both dismissed; damages and costs awarded by Court of Appeal set aside.
Legal Topics
Leasehold Forfeiture, Right of Re Entry, Relief Against Forfeiture, Statutory Notice Requirements, Breach of Covenant, Damages for Unlawful Entry
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Leasehold Forfeiture Right of Re Entry Relief Against Forfeiture Statutory Notice Requirements Breach of Covenant Damages for Unlawful Entry

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Continental Terminal Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority

Defendant/respondent/appellant

James Ben Gaise

Defendant/respondent

Richard Deih

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant lawfully exercised the right of re-entry under the lease agreement and section 29 of the Conveyancing Act, 1973 (NRCD 175)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief against forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to accept rent constituted a breach of statutory duty

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not comply with the mandatory statutory procedure for re-entry under section 29 of the Conveyancing Act, as no proper notice was served and no opportunity to remedy the breach was given. The purported re-entry was therefore unlawful, and the plaintiff's action for relief against forfeiture was premature. Damages awarded for unlawful entry were not justified as there was no evidence of actual re-entry.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim both dismissed; damages and costs awarded by Court of Appeal set aside.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed