COURT RULES IN KAMA'S FAVOUR (PAGE 3)

AN Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by Mr Justice P.K. Gyaesayor has ordered Unilever Ghana Limited to pay interest, calculated at the prevailing bank rate, on US$500,000 or its cedi equivalent to KAMA Health Services for failing to convey legal possession of a property purchased by KAMA from Unilever in 2000.
In addition to the interest, the court ordered Unilever to pay GH¢7,040 to counsel of KAMA to cover expenses incurred in trying to perfect the title of the property sold.
In his ruling, Justice Gyaesayor said the interest payment resulted from the findings of the court that “plaintiff suffered unduly when he borrowed money from the bank, upon which interest was levied, but did not benefit from the said transaction”.
He said in accordance with the law, the plaintiff was entitled to interest for two years at the prevailing bank rate and at simple interest on the sum of US$500,000 or its cedi equivalent and, therefore, directed that with immediate effect Unilever should continue to pay the said interest until the date of final payment.
The ruling followed a suit filed by KAMA Health Services, a limited liability company, against Unilever to recover interest on the US$500,000 or its cedi equivalent, as well as special and general damages for breach of contract and cost.
According to the court, the parties executed a contract of sale of property known as Nos.1-3 and 10-12 OTB layout in Kumasi, popularly known as the SAT building.
"The term of payment by the plaintiff was by three instalments, which was duly complied with, and a deed of assignment was prepared in his favour by the defendant and was subsequently registered at the Lands Commission and stamped by the Lands Valuation Board," it said.
Continuing, it said in compliance with the Land Title Registration Law, the plaintiff presented the documents to the Land Title Registry for registration but it could not be done because of the numerous protests lodged by other persons who saw the publication in the newspapers.
Explaining, the court noted that "persons claiming to sue as representing the Golden Stool lodged various forms of complaints, and through a warning letter the Secretary to the Golden Stool also joined the fray, making it impossible for the plaintiff to obtain the requisite title to the property for which he had paid $500,000.
The court stated that "registration of title to land in Kumasi and its surroundings is compulsory for all landowners and failure to register one's land under PNDCL 152 constitutes a criminal offence”.
It said to prove their seriousness, those who protested against the transactions between Unilever and KAMA Health Services filed summons at a Kumasi High Court, "asking that the sale between the parties be declared null and void for want of consent of the Golden Stool Secretariat".
It said a similar writ was issued by one Opanin Kwame Afreh against Unilever and KAMA, which also sought to declare the sale null and void, and when the issue was brought before the Land Title Registry, it refused to register the properties in the name of KAMA Health Services. Faced with that difficulty, the registry returned to Unilever the lease which was dated August 6, 1999.
The court noted that given the various difficulties faced in registering the property, the plaintiff caused his solicitor "to seek an abrogation of the contract and further to demand the refund of the $500,000, together with interest and incidental expenses incurred by KAMA".
It said while Unilever agreed to that request and by mutual consent terminated the contract and paid the $500,000 to KAMA Health Services, it declined to pay the interest demanded, as well as the incidental expenses incurred by the plaintiff while seeking to perfect its title to the property.
It said while legal possession of the property did not pass to the plaintiff at a time the $500,000 remained in the possession of the defendant, the defendant succeeded in selling the same property at a later date in 2005 when the Golden Stool had then been consented "to another person at a higher price but refused to pay the interest to KAMA without giving KAMA the option to purchase the property" and, therefore, ordered that interest on the $500,000 should be paid.