TWUMASI JA (PRESIDING),
PIESARE ABBAN JJA H1/64/2004 JAMES SIMPSON ... APPELLANT VRS: AFOANI TENKORANG ... RESPONDENT TWUMASI JA The parties in this appeal are related by marriage. The a ppellant who resides in the United Kingdom pursuit of this noble objective, he remitted to the respondent, his brother -in law, an amount of (£5,000) pounds sterling with instructions that half of it be a pplied to the purchase of a residential plot of land in Accra and the remaining half disbursed on the preparation of drawings, building plans etc f or the construction of the house. The respondent a dmitted receipt of the money in the exact quotation except that, as he explained, half of it came to him in sterling while the other half was given to him in the cedi equivalent, which came to (¢3,7500.00). The trial proceeded to unleash vital pieces of evidence out of which the learned trial Judge made positive findings of fact which I fully endorse and I hasten to relate the said facts in a nutshell. The firm stand which the a ppellant took was that the res pondent did not purchase any land at all and that he misapplied or must have embezzled it to the detriment of the a ppellant and, consequently the respondent rendered himself liable to refund the money. However, after the a ppellant had caused evidence on hi s behalf to be taken, it became crystal clear through a nswers in cross -examination of his witnesses and the a nswers to questions a ppellant's counsel put to the respondents that, in fact the respondent purchased a plot of land from a chief at Kwabenya calle d Nana Okanfra II. Before the purchase a search was made at the lands Commission by the respondent and a report issued. Also a purported indenture was prepared. In the a ftermath of the purchase, the a ppellant himself came to Ghana and the respondent handed over these documents to him after introducing the chief to him. This was after the respondent had taken the a ppellant to the land in question. There was also an undisputed fact that the a ppellant had supervised the construction of the proposed building on the land after he and the respondent had gone together to purchase materials for the construction. From all indications, therefore, it was reasonable for the respondent at any rate as at that stage, considering events and a ctivities on the ground, to make a fair a ssessment that he had a ccomplished his task and was entitled to be discharged from any further obligation under the contract. But lo and behold, since we live in a world full of contingencies, the unexpected occurred which must have given the part ies the rudest of shocks. On one of their visits, they saw that an unidentified agent had pulled down the entire edice of the house. It turned out that the act had been committed by an adverse claimant of the land. It may be a ppropriate now to put the a ppe llant's claim in its proper perspective with regard to the
