CYRIL ROBERT HALM VRS MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD & ANOR (J4/70/2023) [2024] GHASC 18 (29 May 2024)

CYRIL ROBERT HALM VRS MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD & ANOR (J4/70/2023) [2024] GHASC 18 (29 May 2024)

Respondent is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services rendered under agency contract, assessed at 2.5% of the purchase price, as evidence established substantial but incomplete performance and unjust enrichment would result if Appellant retained benefit without payment; failure to sue in quantum meruit is not fatal where evidence supports such relief.

Citation
CYRIL ROBERT HALM VRS MULTICHOICE GHANA LTD & ANOR (J4/70/2023) [2024] GHASC 18 (29 May 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Cyril Robert Halm; 1st Defendant/appellant/appellant: Multichoice Ghana Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: Nana Boadu Ayeboafo
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with variation
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Remuneration of Estate Agents, Double Agency, Consideration, Unjust Enrichment
Source Language
eng
Contract Law Agency Law Quantum Meruit Remuneration of Estate Agents Double Agency Consideration Unjust Enrichment

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 7 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyril Robert Halm

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Multichoice Ghana Ltd.

1st Defendant/appellant/appellant

Nana Boadu Ayeboafo

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between the parties for payment of commission
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent was entitled to commission or quantum meruit for services rendered
  3. 3 Whether acting as a double agent bars recovery

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services rendered under agency contract, assessed at 2.5% of the purchase price, as evidence established substantial but incomplete performance and unjust enrichment would result if Appellant retained benefit without payment; failure to sue in quantum meruit is not fatal where evidence supports such relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with variation

Orders

  • Award of 2.5% of USD$2.5m (USD$62,500) to Respondent in quantum meruit
  • Substitution of Court of Appeal's 5% commission award with 2.5% quantum meruit