Adjavor Vrs 1. Hfc Bank (gh) Ltd and 2 Others [2022] GHAHC 12 (25 October 2022)

Adjavor Vrs 1. Hfc Bank (gh) Ltd and 2 Others [2022] GHAHC 12 (25 October 2022)

The 2nd Defendant was not found to have committed fraud as there was insufficient evidence that it knew of the adverse claim at the time of sale. However, since the 2nd Defendant could not deliver good title and possession to the Plaintiff, it must refund all monies paid by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff is not entitled to special damages for insurance premiums or renovations, but is awarded general damages and costs. The 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent for the period the Plaintiff occupied the properties, but no computation is made due to lack of evidence.

Citation
[2022] GHAHC 12
Parties
Plaintiff: Bonaventure Adjavor; 1st Defendant: HFC Bank (GH) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Gefel Estate Developers; 3rd Defendant: Dora Adjavor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
25 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against 2nd Defendant granted; 2nd Defendant's counter-claim for rent declared but not quantified; no relief against 1st or 3rd Defendant.
Legal Topics
Mortgage, Fraud, Breach of Contract, Damages, Title to Land, Negligence
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Tort Law Mortgage Fraud Breach of Contract Damages Title to Land +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonaventure Adjavor

Plaintiff

HFC Bank (GH) Limited

1st Defendant

Gefel Estate Developers

2nd Defendant

Dora Adjavor

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing to do due diligence prior to granting the mortgage facility to the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant breached its agreement with the Plaintiff to conduct a title search
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that its advice to the Plaintiff was sound

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Defendant was not found to have committed fraud as there was insufficient evidence that it knew of the adverse claim at the time of sale. However, since the 2nd Defendant could not deliver good title and possession to the Plaintiff, it must refund all monies paid by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff is not entitled to special damages for insurance premiums or renovations, but is awarded general damages and costs. The 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent for the period the Plaintiff occupied the properties, but no computation is made due to lack of evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against 2nd Defendant granted; 2nd Defendant's counter-claim for rent declared but not quantified; no relief against 1st or 3rd Defendant.

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant to refund US$27,500 to Plaintiff
  • 2nd Defendant to refund US$82,500 to Plaintiff (amount paid by 1st Defendant)