LAMPTEY VRS. SARPOR (GJ 0041/2021) [2024] GHAHC 121 (21 June 2024)

LAMPTEY VRS. SARPOR (GJ 0041/2021) [2024] GHAHC 121 (21 June 2024)

The court found, based on the conduct of the parties, the oral agreement, and the plaintiff’s contribution of equipment, that a partnership agreement existed entitling the plaintiff to 20% shares. Defendant’s evidence about Honest Chef being a subsidiary of Lords Restaurant was inconsistent and unsupported....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAMPTEY VRS. SARPOR (GJ 0041/2021) [2024] GHAHC 121 (21 June 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruby Lamptey; Defendant: Stephen Okine Sarpor (doing business as Honest Chef Restaurant)
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Partnership, Oral Agreements, Breach of Contract, Shareholding, Damages
Source Language
en
Contract Law Commercial Law Partnership Oral Agreements Breach of Contract Shareholding Damages

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruby Lamptey

Plaintiff

Stephen Okine Sarpor (doing business as Honest Chef Restaurant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a partnership agreement between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to her claim for 20% shares and equipment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to his counterclaim for rent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, based on the conduct of the parties, the oral agreement, and the plaintiff’s contribution of equipment, that a partnership agreement existed entitling the plaintiff to 20% shares. Defendant’s evidence about Honest Chef being a subsidiary of Lords Restaurant was inconsistent and unsupported. Plaintiff’s equipment was used for over seven years, so monetary compensation was ordered instead of return. Defendant’s counterclaim for rent was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay GH₵35,000 for plaintiff’s equipment with interest from January 2017 to date of payment at commercial bank rate.
  • Defendant to pay GH₵100,000 as general damages for breach of contract.