Achiampong Vrs State Housing Company Ltd & 3 Ors [2022] GHASC 37 (9 February 2022)

Achiampong Vrs State Housing Company Ltd & 3 Ors [2022] GHASC 37 (9 February 2022)

The plaintiff breached covenants in her lease by failing to build and pay rent within the stipulated period. The 1st defendant lawfully re-entered and terminated the lease under Act 322 after proper notice. Plaintiff's rights in the land were extinguished, and subsequent allocations were proper. No fraud was proven. The findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no misdirection by the Court of Appeal.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 37
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Mrs. Margaret Y. N. Achiampong; 1st Defendant/respondent/respondent: State Housing Company Ltd.; 2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent: Mr. Kudom; 3rd Respondent: Nii Afotey Ahwiah II; 4th Respondent: Clement Bortey
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Forfeiture, Ejectment, Breach of Covenant, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Lease Forfeiture Ejectment Breach of Covenant Statutory Interpretation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Margaret Y. N. Achiampong

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

State Housing Company Ltd.

1st Defendant/respondent/respondent

Mr. Kudom

2nd Defendant/respondent/respondent

Nii Afotey Ahwiah II

3rd Respondent

Clement Bortey

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal judgment was against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal misdirected itself on the applicable legal principles, including fraud, estoppel, frustration, nemo dat quod non habet, and caveat emptor
  3. 3 Whether the State Housing Corporation (Ejectment) Act, 1970 (Act 322) applied to the plaintiff's lease and ejectment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff breached covenants in her lease by failing to build and pay rent within the stipulated period. The 1st defendant lawfully re-entered and terminated the lease under Act 322 after proper notice. Plaintiff's rights in the land were extinguished, and subsequent allocations were proper. No fraud was proven. The findings of the lower courts were supported by the evidence, and there was no misdirection by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.