KWADDEY v. OKANTEY [1972] 2 GLR 84
HIGH COURT, ACCRA
Date: 25 MAY 1971
BEFORE: COUSSEY J.
CASES REFERRED TO
(1) Callisher v. Bischoffsheim (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 449; 39 L.J.Q.B. 181; 18 W.R, 1137.
(2) Miles v. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886) 32 Ch.D. 266; 55 L.J.Ch. 801; 54 L.T. 582; 34
W.R. 669, C.A.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
A CLAIM by the plaintiff for (1) a declaration that by virtue of a compromise concluded in 1965 in
respect of a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29 May 1959, the defendant had waived all his rights and interests in the said judgment and that he was not entitled to proceed to execution thereon and
(2) a claim for perpetual injunction against the defendant and his agents. The facts are as summarised in the headnote.
COUNSEL
Mrs. Cobbina for Peter Adjetey for the plaintiff.
Nelson Cofie for the defendant.
JUDGMENT OF COUSSEY J.
[His lordship stated the facts as summarised in the headnote and continued:] It is my view that the
defendant has for a considerable period of time been wanting to be appointed a magistrate. It has been reported by counsel for the plaintiff that he has at long last succeeded. But it seems that in his desperation, he made certain promises such as his own admission that he copied to the plaintiff, a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice, to the effect that for a consideration of such an appointment he would not pursue his case. I have therefore no hesitation in disbelieving his story that he did not receive £G200 as consideration for not pursuing his action against the plaintiff when there was a delay in getting Ayeh Kumi to help him to get the job as a magistrate. I find as a fact that he did ask for £G300 and received £G200 to stop his action against the plaintiff and that this amounts to an agreement to compromise the earlier action.
It is the law that an agreement to compromise an action may amount to a good consideration: See
Callisher v. Bischoffsheim (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 449 and Miles v. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886)
32 Ch.D. 266. Consequently, the defendant’s offer to stop further litigation on being paid £G200 was
good consideration from which he could not resile.
The plaintiff therefore succeeds in her claim and I hereby make (1) a declaration that under and by virtue of a compromise concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on or about the first half of 1965 in respect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered in favour [p.86] of [1972] 2 GLR 84 of the defendant on 29 May 1959, the defendant has waived all his rights or other interests in the said judgment and that he is not entitled to proceed to execution thereon and (2) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and licensees from interferring with the plaintiff’s possession or ownership of house No. F. 526/2 Christiansborg or the land on which it is situated or otherwise dealing with the said house and land. Costs to the plaintiff inclusive are assessed at ¢250.00.
DECISION
Judgment for the plaintiff.
S.Y.B.-B.
