Adjavor Vrs 1. Hfc Bank (gh) Ltd and 2 Others [2022] GHAHC 12 (25 October 2022)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 5) HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE WILLIAM BOAMPONG, HIGH COURT JUDGE SUIT NO: GJ/819/2017 BONAVENTURE ADJAVOR PLAINTIFF GHANA EMBASSY PARIS - FRANCE VS 1. HFC BANK (GH) LIMITED 1ST DEFENDANT EBANKESE HOUSE NORTH RIDGE ACCRA 2. GEFEL ESTATE DEVELOPERS 2NDDEFENDANT BAATSONA – ACCRA 3. DORA ADJAVOR 3RD DEFENDANT UNNUMBERED HOUSE BAATSONA - ACCRA J U D G M E N T By his Amended Writ of Summons the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:- a) Refund of the various sums of money paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant for the property the subject matter of this action based on the advice and recommendation of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendants herein. b) Interest on any amount to be arrived at by the Court at the prevailing Commercial Bank rate from dates of payment of the sums to the date of final payment. c) Special and General Damages d) Cost including Legal Costs. 2nd Defendant’s Counter-Claim: 2nd Defendant Counter-Claims against the Plaintiff as follows:- a) Payment of rent on the mortgaged house at Baatsona from October 2010 to August 2015 (15 months) at a monthly rent of Three Hundred and Fifty US Dollars ($350.00). b) Payment of rent on the temporal accommodation at Lashibi from September 2015 to date of final vacation of the property at a monthly rent of Six Hundred US Dollars ($600.00). PLAINTIFF’S CASE: The Plaintiff filed his Witness Statement through his Attorney namely Godson Sena Adjavor. The Plaintiffs Attorney states that the 1st Defendant, through Mr. Sherlock Ashiagbor, the then Managing Director of the 1st Defendant’s Bank of the Baatsona Branch, informed the Plaintiff of the 1st Defendant’s mortgage facilities to help the Plaintiff to acquire a residential accommodation in Accra. Mr. Ashiagbor recommended to the Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage agreement with the 1st Defendant to purchase one of the 2nd Defendant’s properties. The Plaintiff relying on the said recommendation, Mr. Ashiagbor on behalf of the 1st Defendant arranged a meeting between the Managing Director of the 2nd Defendant and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff upon the said recommendation of the 1st Defendant subsequently entered into various agreements with the 1st and 2nd Defendants to purchase the property, subject matter in dispute. By the representation and recommendation of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff accepted an offer from the 2nd Defendant to purchase a four (4) bedroom detached house at Baatsona Accra, at One Hundred and Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$110,000.00). The Plaintiff also entered into a mortgage agreement with the 1st Defendant in September 2010 to purchase the 2nd Defendant’s said property. By the 1st Defendant’s recommendation, the Plaintiff entered into a Facility Pre- agreement Disclosure. By the Facility Pre-Agreement Disclosure, the Plaintiff paid $69.81 search fee for a search to be conducted on the 2nd Defendant’s property. Other payments made by the Plaintiff’s includes: payment of $1,034.49 registration fees of legal documentation and payments of $1,100.00 for the settlement of stamp duty. The disbursement of the loan by the 1st Defendant was also conditional on the 1st Defendant obtaining a satisfactory search report from the Land Title Registry and that all title and related documents with respect to ownership of the property by the 2nd Defendant had been received and satisfactory. The Plaintiff states that the 1st Defendant failed to carry out the search on the ownership of the property even though the Plaintiff paid for same to the 1st Defendant. 1st Defendant refused to carry out the said search but it informed the Plaintiff that the 2nd Defendant is the true owner of the property. The 1st Defendant then went ahead and paid 75% of the sale price of the property being Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$82,500.00) while the Plaintiff paid 25 of same being Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$27,500.00) to the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff and his family then moved into possession of the property in November 2010 and made further renovations to the property in the sum of Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00). 44 months into possession of the property, the Plaintiff was served with a Hearing Notice to appear before the High Court, Land Division on 22nd July 2014 on an Ex-parte Motion for an Order for execution of a Court Order in respect of the property the Plaintiff purchased from the 2nd Defendant. See Exhibit ‘E’. For the first time, the Plaintiff found out that the property he purchased from the 2nd Defendant, was the subject matter of litigation in a suit entitled Charlotte Tawiah Vrs Gefel Estate Ltd. and Benjamin Addo in Suit No. SOL 42/11 The Court per Exhibit ‘F’ granted Judgment to Charlotte Tawiah in which the Court declared Charlotte Tawiah as the truthful owner of the land on which property the Plaintiff bought from the 2nd Defendant is situate. The Plaintiff states that at the time the 2nd Defendant sold the property to him, the 2nd Defendant was aware that the said Charlotte Tawiah was laying claim to the property. 2nd Defendant however refused to disclose to the Plaintiff that Charlotte Tawiah was laying an adverse claim to the property. The Plaintiff had thus suffered and incurred expenses but has not been able to enjoy the property. At that time the Plaintiff per the mortgage had made monthly repayments of $1,232 of the mortgage from October 2010 to April 2016 per Exhibit G. Plaintiff had also paid Fire Insurance of $1,248 per year to Ghana Star Life Assurance Company from September 2010 to April 2016. Per Exhibit ‘G’, Plaintiff had also spent a total of $3,689.46 on various administrative charges by the 1st Defendant per Exhibit G. Plaintiff states that when he and his family were ejected from the property, the 2nd Defendant provided an alternative accommodation which was not in any way comparable to the mortgage property. THE 1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE: The 1st Defendant states that the Plaintiff is a customer of the 1st Defendant’s Bank. The 2nd Defendant is not its customer. The 3rd Defendant is the estranged wife of the Plaintiff. Mr. Sherlock Ashiagbor is no longer with the 1st Defendant’s Bank but he was a Branch Manager of the Bank of 1st Defendant at Baatsona at the time of the transaction. The 1st Defendant’s Bank do not assume advisory roles either legal or otherwise to its customers who want to purchase property. Those who want to embark on Home Mortgage Scheme had to seek independent legal advice. Therefore none of the 1st Defendant’s staff was involved in the Plaintiff’s decision to choose, negotiate, and purchase, the property from the 2nd Defendant. According to the 1st Defendant after the Plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property from the 2nd Defendant, the Plaintiff approached the 1st Defendant for mortgage financing of 75% of the purchase price which is Eighty Two Thousand, Five Hundred US Dollars (US$82,500.00) of which the 1st Defendant paid to the 2nd Defendant. As part of the pre-disbursement condition under the facility, 1st Defendant was to receive a satisfactory Search Report from the Land Title Registry, Lands Commission from the Plaintiff at the cost of the Plaintiff. However the 1st Defendant as a prudent financier of the property was also duty bound to conduct its own due diligence on the property in order to ascertain whether or not it was unencumbered before it finances part of a property for its customer. The 1st Defendant therefore paid for and received a Search Report dated 28th September 2010 that it subsequently relied upon as part of its pre-disbursement conditions under the facility per Exhibit ‘4’. Exhibit ‘4’ confirmed the transaction between Gefel Estate and its grantor, Veronica Yawa Agoesi as contained in the indenture dated 28th July 2010. The 1st Defendant therefore relied on it. According to the 1st Defendant, between the time the Plaintiff applied for the facility and the time the 1st Defendant conducted the search and subsequently disbursed the sum of Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars ($82,500.00) to the 2nd Defendant, there was no way a search conducted at the Lands Title Registry/Lands Commission would have revealed the existence of the suit that was pending in Court involving the 2nd Defendant and the one Charlotte Tawiah. If it was possible at that time for the 1st Defendant to have known the said litigation, 1st Defendant would not have paid the money to the 2nd Defendant. No official of the 1st Defendant was therefore negligent regarding the facility as been alleged by the Plaintiff. The Court processes on the defeat of the 2nd Defendant’s title to the property was served on the 1st Defendant several years after it had disbursed the facility to the Plaintiff. There was no way therefore for the officials of the 1st Defendant to have known the defeat in the title of the 2nd Defendant in the property. 1st Defendant continue to make deduction from the Plaintiff mortgaged accounts because it is entitled to do so under the terms of the facility. The 1st Defendant however upon learning that the property was through, no fault of the Plaintiff freezed the interest on Plaintiff’s mortgage accounts on purely humanitarian grounds. It is the strong case of the 1st Defendant that 2nd Defendant through the then Managing Director Mr. Gershon Odai Adjin had been fraudulent in its dealing with the 1st Defendant and Plaintiff because he failed to disclose to the 1st Defendant and Plaintiff that there was pending litigation on the property at the time the 1st Defendant was disbursing the $82,500.00 to the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant through Mr. Gershon Odai Adjin was also fraudulent when it received the Eighty Two Thousand, Five Hundred US Dollars ($82,500.00) from the 1st Defendant. After the judgment in Exhibit ‘F’, the 2nd Defendant did not bring to the notice of its defective title to the property until the 1st Defendant and Plaintiff were served with Hearing Notice dated 11th July 2014. At the time the 1st Defendant got to know that the property had been attached in execution of a judgment it was too late in the day for the 1st Defendant to salvage its mortgage interest in the property. As a result of losing the property, the Plaintiff had refused to make further repayments. According to the 1st Defendant due to these fraudulent acts of the 2nd Defendant, the 1st Defendant is entitled to claim from the 1st Defendant the sum of Fifty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Nine US Dollars and Twelve Cent (US$50,949.12) being the balance under the loan Facility as at August 2016 and since the interest on the said Fifty Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Nine US Dollars and Twelve Cent (US$50,949.12) has been frozen from August 2016 till date as a result of the loss of the property to the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant is entitled to receive same from the 2nd Defendant at the contractual rate of 13% per annum from August 2016 till date of final payment. 2ND DEFENDANT’S CASE: The 2nd Defendant’s Company is in the business of estate development. It is the case of the 2nd Defendant that sometime in 2010, the Branch Manager of the 1st Defendant’s Bank at the Baatsona Branch informed the 2nd Defendant that a client of the 1st Defendant’s Bank i.e. Plaintiff was looking for a house to buy. The 1st Defendant therefore arranged for the Plaintiff to meet the 2nd Defendant. At that time the 2nd Defendant had a four (4) bedroom house ready for sale at Baatsona in Accra. Same was shown to the Plaintiff and he expressed interest to buy. The 2nd Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into negotiations and they finally arrived at One Hundred and Ten Thousand US Dollars as the purchase price of the house. The Plaintiff bought the property with a mortgage facility obtained from the 1st Defendant upon which the 1st Defendant paid 75% of the purchase price. Prior to the completion of the sale, the 2nd Defendant had presented all relevant documents on the property to the 1st Defendant for the purposes of conducting due diligent about the true owner of the house. Plaintiff took possession of the house after the 2nd Defendant had fully completed same to the satisfaction of the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant. Plaintiff took possession of same in November 2010. 2nd Defendant therefore disputes the Plaintiff’s claim that he further spent an additional Ten Thousand US Dollar ($10,000.00) on the house when he took possession. Sometime in 2011, after the Plaintiff had taken possession of the property, one Charlotte Tawiah instituted an action in the Land Division, Accra High Court, against the 2nd Defendant and its grantor challenging the 2nd Defendant’s title to the land on which the Plaintiff’s house had been built. The 2nd Defendant lost the case and Madam Charlotte Tawiah was declared the true owner of the land. To the 2nd Defendant, it acquired a valid transferable title to the land before putting up the property but the 2nd Defendant met this unfortunate situation after the said judgment. 2nd Defendant therefore denies the allegation of fraud and states that if it knew its vendor had a defective title to the land, it would not have invested in same to meet this predicament. The case instituted by Charlotte Tawiah was filed in 2011, not long after the Plaintiff had been put into possession of the house. The 2nd Defendant states that when the Plaintiff’s family were ejected from the property, the 2nd Defendant on that very day arranged for an alternative place for them which is even bigger and of higher value than the former place. 2nd Defendant contend that as soon as the Plaintiff’s temporal accommodation at Lashibi is sold, it will make payments to the Plaintiff as full settlement. However the 3rd Defendant (Plaintiff’s wife had expressed interest in the Lashibi property that had caused a delay in the sale of the Lashibi property. 2nd Defendant admits that the Plaintiff is entitled to those funds as set out in his claim under paragraph 29(a) and 29(d) The 2nd Defendant admits the payment by the Plaintiff as set out in paragraphs 24(a) – (d) of 2nd Defendants Witness Statement. It is a strong case of the 2nd Defendant that it has been vindicated by a subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Cephas Okuonu Addo Vrs Koiwah Investment Ltd. & 3 ors. Civil Appeal No. H/56/206 The said judgment covers a large tract of land including that on which the Baatsona property was built. It was determined in that suit that the subject matter of that suit did not belong to Cephas Okuonu Addo grantor of Charlotte Tawiah and that as a result of that judgment, the 2nd Defendant is already in the process of re-possessing the property. 3RD DEFENDANT’S CASE The 3rd Defendant applied and was joined to the case. Her case is that she occupied Hse No. 16 Tema Accra with the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff left the jurisdiction. That house was their matrimonial house. She had sued the Plaintiff in a divorce suit in Suit No. DM/0282/2017 which is pending. On 4th January 2018, the 2nd Defendant served her a notice to quit the property and hand same to them. She prays the Court to restrain 2nd Defendant from interfering with her occupation of her matrimonial home till the final determination of this suit. ISSUES: At the close of the pleadings, the issues filed by the Plaintiff and the additional issues filed by the 2nd Defendant were set down for trial. They are: a) Whether or not the 1st Defendant was negligent in failing to do due diligence prior to granting the mortgage facility to the Plaintiff. b) Whether or not the 1st Defendant breached its agreement with the Plaintiff to conduct a title search. c) Whether or not the 1st Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that its advice to the Plaintiff was sound. d) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant acted fraudulently in failing to inform the Plaintiff as the legal and beneficial owner of the subject matter. e) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant fraudulently misrepresented itself to the Plaintiff as the legal and beneficial owner of the subject matter. f) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant’s act of selling the subject matter to the Plaintiff amounted to fraud. g) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to all his reliefs. h) Any other issues arising from the pleadings Additional issues: 1. Whether or not the 2nd Defendant provided the Plaintiff and his family with a 4 bedroom two-storey house with 1 bedroom outhouse upon the loss of the mortgage house. 2. Whether or not the Plaintiff, in turn, did accept to pay rent on the mortgage house as well as the alternative house provided 2nd Defendant should arrange to sell the alternative house and reimburse the Defendant thereafter. 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s wife wrote to the Defendant claiming she had an interest in the mortgage house and should therefore be allowed to continue to live there pending the final resolution of the matter. 4. Whether or not the 2nd Defendant is entitled to its counter-claim. It is undisputed on the records that somewhere in November 2010, the Plaintiff took a mortgage facility from the 1st Defendant’s Bank to buy a four (4) bedroom house from the 2nd Defendant. Plaintiff moved into possession of the said house in November 2010 but pursuant to a Court action initiated by one Charlotte Tawiah against the 2nd Defendant in a suit with Suit No. SOL42/22 entitled:- Charlotte Tawiah Vrs Gefel Estate Limited & Bejamin Addo The Plaintiff was ejected from the said house on the 2nd July 2014. It is also not disputed on the records that immediately when the Plaintiff and his family were ejected from the said house the 2nd Defendant provided them with an alternative accommodation. It is however the strong contention of the Plaintiff that at the time he was purchasing the said house from the 2nd Defendant, same was encumbered by an adverse clam. Plaintiff therefore contends that the 2nd Defendant acted fraudulently in failing to inform him about the adverse claim on the subject matter. According to the Plaintiff, for the pleadings and Witness Statement of the 2nd Defendant, he 2nd Defendant maintained that it was the owner of the subject property. At paragraph 7 of the Witness Statement of the 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant proved its ownership of the house and even provided to the 1st Defendant’s documents on the land to enable the 1st Defendant and Plaintiff to conduct a search on the said property to ascertain the 2nd Defendant as the true owner of same. 2nd Defendant also under Cross-Examination insisted its true ownership of the subject property as follows:- Q. You assured the 1st Defendant’s Branch Manager of the availability of this A. Q. property without encumbrance, is that not so? Yes. At the last hearing date you confirmed to this Honourable Court that you assured the 1st Defendant that the property, subject matter of this suit was free from all encumbrances/any issues? A. Yes. Throughout the proceeding in this case the 2nd Defendant had therefore maintained his rightful ownership to the property subject matter in this suit. 2nd Defendant never mentioned anywhere in this proceedings that the subject property in this suit is/was encumbered in any form. Plaintiff however emphases that the 2nd Defendant committed fraud on him when the 2nd Defendant refused to inform him that one Charlotte Osei was laying an adverse claim to the land on which the subject hose is situate. On the other hand, 2nd Defendant denies the allegation that it committed fraud on the Plaintiff. 2nd Defendant contends that it had absolutely no intention of committing fraud on the Plaintiff. 2nd Defendant states that if it knew that its grantor had a defective title to the land, it would never presented all the documents covering the property to Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant to enable them to conduct their independent investigation and a search on its title. The Plaintiff had been of the view that the Court suit between Charlotte Tawiah and the 2nd Defendant was pending at the time when he was purchasing the property. It would be recalled that the Plaintiff took possession of the property in November 2010. The 2nd Defendant had however pleaded that the Court suit between it and Charlotte Tawiah was initiated in 2011 against the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant however did not attach the Writ of Summons which Charlotte Tawiah issued against the 2nd Defendant. If same was exhibited it would have simple guided the Court to know when that suit was instituted against the 2nd Defendant. That would have enabled the Court to know whether or not the suit was initiated before or after November 2010 when the Plaintiff took possession of the house. All what we have on the records is the judgment in that case per Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7 indicates that the judgment in that case was delivered on the 26th March 2014. I am therefore not guided by the evidence to clearly ascertain whether or not at the time the Plaintiff was purchasing the house from 2nd Defendant the said suit was or was not pending. A clue I can have on the adverse claim Charlotte Tawiah laid on the land was averred by the 2nd Defendant in paragraph 15 of its Witness Statement as follows: “It is true that in 2008, the Police initiated criminal proceedings against 2nd Defendant in respect of the same land based on a report made by the said Charlotte Tawiah but had to withdraw their charges and discontinue with the prosecution when 2nd Defendant objected to a self-serving composite plan that they had sought to tender in the matter, paving the way for the 2nd Defendant to complete the building without any interference from anybody until the fresh case was brought up at the High Court in 2011 and not too long after the Plaintiff had been put into possession”. This piece of evidence, although portray that Charlotte Osei laid claim to the land the house in question is situate, it does not portray that there was any pending criminal litigation in respect of the disputed land at the time the Plaintiff was arranging to buy the house in question in 2010. The Police could not even prosecute the 2nd Defendant in Court. I am not guided by the Writ of Summons in the case Charlotte Tawiah instituted against the 2nd Defendant to clearly know whether or not at the time the 2nd Defendant sold the property to the Plaintiff there was a pending litigation on the title of the land. However I am inclined to believe that if the 2nd Defendant know that the title of the land was in issue, the 2nd Defendant itself would not have wished to develop the land since same would not have been in the best interest of the 2nd Defendant. I am swayed even to settle on the fact that the 2nd Defendant did not speculate of any challenge to its title to the land at the time the 2nd Defendant develop same and sold same to the Plaintiff. I am further inclined to believe that the judgment in Charlotte Tawiah obtained against the 2nd Defendant in respect of the title of the land came as a blow to the 2nd Defendant since same was a great loss of the investment the 2nd Defendant put in the property. The said judgment had caused a serious loss and impact on the 2nd Defendant. It would not therefore be reasonable to conclude that the 2nd Defendant would put in a huge sum of money into a land in which by the 2nd Defendant’s title is doubted. I am therefore of the considered view that the 2nd Defendant had no contention whatsoever to commit fraud on Plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant investing so much in land it believe have no title and sell same to the Plaintiff. I hold that 2nd Defendant in the transaction under consideration committed no fraud on the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. At a point in time, the 1st Defendant also counter-claimed against the 2nd Defendant. However the 1st Defendant abandoned its counter-claim against the 2nd Defendant when the 1st Defendant filed its Amended Statement of Defence on the 9th July 2018. In this suit the substantive relief of the Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants is for the recovery of the monies the Plaintiff had paid to 2nd Defendant in respect of the sale of the house in question. When Counsel for the Plaintiff was cross-examining the 2nd Defendant, the 2nd Defendant acknowledged that it was paid Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$27,500.00) by the Plaintiff and also paid Eighty Two Thousand, Five Hundred US Dollars ($82,500.00) by the 1st Defendant’s Bank. These amount of payment made to the 2nd Defendant are not also doubted by the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. In the event of the 2nd Defendant’s inability to deliver the house fully to the Plaintiff as agreed, the 2nd Defendant should refund these payments to the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that subsequent to this breach of the agreement of the sale of the subject house he has also suffered and incurred expenses and has not been able to enjoy the property which he acquired. Plaintiff claims for special damages in respect of those expenses he incurred as follows:- 1. The Mortgage protection insurance of Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Two US Dollars and Ninety Three Cent ($5,382.93) per year at Star Life Assurance Company from September 2010 to April 2016 per Exhibit ‘G’. 2. The Fire Insurance of One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Eight US Dollars (US$1,248.00) per year from Ghana Union Assurance Company the Plaintiff paid for September 2010 to April 2016 per Exhibit ‘G’. 3. The Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Nine US Dollars 46 Cent (US$3,689.46) on various administrative charges paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant per Exhibit ‘G’. On the Mortgage Protection Insurance of Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty Two US Dollars and Ninety Three Cent ($5,382.93) per year the Plaintiff paid, from 2010 – 2016, since the Plaintiff was ejected from the said premises in July 2014, the Plaintiff enjoyed the Insurance from 2010 – 2014 leaving 2015 and 2016 to be enjoyed by the Plaintiff due to the breach of the contract for sale of the said premises. I will have recovered the premium the Plaintiff paid for the year 2015 and 2016 for the Plaintiff but in insurance Law the Plaintiff is permitted to recover the said premium he did enjoy from his insurers the sum paid per a year (i.e. US$5,382.93) for the years 2015 and 2016. For the same reason I cannot recover for the Plaintiff the premium of One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Eight US Dollars (US$1,248.00) for the years 2015 and 2016. I am unable to recover for the Plaintiff the said amount he claimed he spent to renovate the house since there is no evidence on the records that the Plaintiff after taking possession of the house, informed the 2nd Defendant that there would be the need for further renovations of the house and both the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant agreed to the said renovation. Indeed the Plaintiff paid some administrative charges to the 1st Defendant before the mortgage agreement went through. It is upon that, that the 1st Defendant made some payment to the 2nd Defendant. Somehow the agreement between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff was effected half way but not in full. I will however decline to refund the administrative charges the Plaintiff paid to the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff from the 2nd Defendant. I will factor that into the General Damages. In summary I will not award any Special Damage for Plaintiff in respect of the insurance premium. The Plaintiff can pursue his insurers for these unused premium. The 2nd Defendant had also counter-claimed against the Plaintiff as follows:- a) Payment of rent on the mortgaged house at Baatsona from October 2010 to August 2015 (59 months) at monthly rent of Three Hundred and Fifty US Dollars (US$350.00). b) Payment of rent on the temporal accommodation at Lashibi from September 2015 to date of final vacation of the property at a monthly rent of Six Hundred US Dollars (US$600.00). Indeed since I have recovered for the Plaintiff all the monies he (Plaintiff) and 1st Defendant had paid to the 2nd Defendant towards the purchase of the Baatsona house, then the 2nd Defendant also is entitled to rents for accommodating the Plaintiff in both the Baatsona and Lashibi house. I hold firmly that the 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent to be payable by the Plaintiff towards the two houses the Plaintiff had occupied. The 2nd Defendant priced the monthly rent of Three Hundred and Fifty US Dollars (US$350.00) for the Baatsona house and Six Hundred US Dollars (US$600.00) for the Lashibi house. The Plaintiff had denied the 2nd Defendant’s counter-claim but as said earlier, the 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent. However, the heavy hurdle ahead of me is how to calculate the rent payable every month towards each of the two (2) houses. 2nd Defendant was unable to call an expert in the field of the estates to guide the Court as to how much rent should be paid on each of the two (2) houses per month. It is difficult for me to sit on the comfort of this Court room to charge rent of houses in Baatsona and Lashibi. This is not also a matter which I can take judicial notice. I have looked around but I am still unable to know how much rent I should charge in the circumstance. Having not been guided on the evidence about how much rent I should exert on Plaintiff, I have no option than to repeat my earlier holding that the 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent to be paid by Plaintiff on the two houses aforementioned for the period the Plaintiff stayed in those houses. In respect of Lashibi house, it is undisputed on the records that the 2nd Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he had got a buyer in October 2016. 2nd Defendant therefore urged upon the Plaintiff to vacate the house. Since then the Plaintiff himself had not step in the house. It is rather the Plaintiff’s wife, 3rd Defendant who had refused to vacate the house. The Plaintiff’s wife (3rd Defendant) even wrote to the 1st Defendant and requested the 1st Defendant to prevent 2nd Defendant from ejecting her. This had disabled the 2nd Defendant to sell the Lashibi home. Since the 3rd Defendant is not a party in the contract which was made between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, but still the 2nd Defendant has heeded to the request of the 3rd Defendant, I cannot call upon the Plaintiff to suffer for the 3rd Defendant’s occupation of the Lashibi house after October, 2016. The 3rd Defendant had pleaded that a Matrimonial Court where she had sued the Plaintiff had ordered her to stay in the house but 3rd Defendant could not exhibit any proceedings from the Matrimonial Court to that effect. The Plaintiff’s wife was joined to the suit as the 3rd Defendant. Pursuant to her been joined to the suit, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Writ and Statement of Claim but Plaintiff did not seek any relief from 3rd Defendant. I make no relief against the 3rd Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. 3rd Defendant did not also counter-claim against any Party in this suit and cannot benefit any relief against any Party. The Plaintiff’s relief is in substance against 1st and 2nd Defendant but having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, Plaintiff’s relief would be made against the 2nd Defendant alone. I consequently grant the Plaintiff’s reliefs against the 2nd Defendant as follows:- 1. On Plaintiff’s relief (a) on his Amended Writ of Summons, I order the 2nd Defendant to refund a) Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$27,500.00) to Plaintiff which Plaintiff paid to the 2nd Defendant. b) Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred US Dollars (US$82,500.00) which the 1st Defendant paid to the 2nd Defendant. I grant the 2nd Defendant’s counter-claim against the Plaintiff to the extent that the 2nd Defendant is entitled to rent for the period the Plaintiff occupied his two (2) premises but Plaintiff had not guided me with enough evidence to enable me to compute the rent. The grant of the 2nd Defendant’s Counter-claim against the Plaintiff therefore is just a declaratory judgment. From the evidence the occupation of the Plaintiff in the Lashibi house came to an end in October 2016 when the 2nd Defendant expressed its interest to sell same and pay the Plaintiff’s money to him. The Plaintiff himself had not expressed any interest to continue to stay in the Lashibi house from October 2016. If the 3rd Defendant continue to stay in the Lashibi house even after October 2016, then she is not in the Lashibi house at the instance of the Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant do not have the blessing of this Court to stay in Lashibi house after October 2016. I will however decline to make any specific orders to eject the 3rd Defendant from the Lashibi house since the 2nd Defendant has not asked me to do so. If the 3rd Defendant derive her stay in the Lashibi house from the Matrimonial Court (of which no such proceedings is before me) then the 2nd Defendant may take up its grievance from there. In addition to the grant I have made for the Plaintiff on his relief (a) of this Amended Writ of Summons, I award GH¢30,000.00 General Damages in favour of the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant. Cost of GH¢25,000.00 is awarded against the 2nd Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. 2nd Defendant’s Counter-claim against Plaintiff is granted as explained above. That no computation of rent had been made in favour of 2nd Defendant for lack of sufficient evidence. (SGD) WILLIAM BOAMPONG (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) COUNSEL: WISDOM ANTHONIO FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT PRESENT 24