Introduction
This essay explores the application of equitable principles of specific performance by the Supreme Court of Ghana in the context of land and property disputes, as guided by the quotations from Chitty on Contracts (28th Edition, para 28-007) and Lord Parker’s dictum in Stickney v Keeble [1915] AC 386. The core principles highlight that specific performance is available for unique assets like land due to the lack of satisfactory substitutes, but equity grants this remedy only when it is just and equitable. This analysis focuses on three cases—Smith v Blankson [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 374, Eric Ansong v Mr. and Mrs. Gorman [2012] 41 GMJ 113, and Bonsu v Agyemang [2012] 2 SCGLR 978—to succinctly assess how the court applied these principles. The discussion situates itself within the field of equity and succession, reflecting a student’s perspective on the intersection of legal theory and judicial practice in Ghanaian jurisprudence.
Specific Performance as a Remedy for Unique Property: Smith v Blankson
In Smith v Blankson [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 374, the Supreme Court of Ghana addressed a dispute over the sale of land where the vendor failed to complete the transfer. Guided by the principle from Chitty on Contracts, the court recognised land as a unique asset for which no substitute could adequately compensate the purchaser. The plaintiff sought specific performance to enforce the contract, arguing that monetary damages would not suffice. The court, in its ruling, upheld the request, reasoning that the distinct nature of the property justified equitable intervention. This decision aligns with the established view that specific performance is often the primary remedy in land disputes, reflecting a sound understanding of equitable principles. However, the court also considered whether such a remedy was just, subtly echoing Lord Parker’s dictum, though its primary focus remained on the uniqueness of the subject matter.
Balancing Equity and Justice: Eric Ansong v Mr. and Mrs. Gorman
Turning to Eric Ansong v Mr. and Mrs. Gorman [2012] 41 GMJ 113, the Supreme Court faced a more complex scenario involving a breach of contract for the sale of a house. While the principle of specific performance as a remedy for unique property was relevant, the court placed greater emphasis on Lord Parker’s guidance from Stickney v Keeble that equity must be just and equitable in granting such relief. The defendants argued that specific performance would cause undue hardship, as they had made improvements to the property. The court, therefore, evaluated the broader circumstances, ultimately denying specific performance in favour of damages. This ruling demonstrates an awareness of the limitations of equitable remedies, prioritising fairness over a rigid application of the uniqueness principle, and reflects a cautious but logical approach to balancing competing interests.
Equitable Discretion in Context: Bonsu v Agyemang
Finally, in Bonsu v Agyemang [2012] 2 SCGLR 978, the Supreme Court again grappled with a land sale dispute where the vendor reneged on the agreement. The court reiterated the Chitty principle, acknowledging land’s unique status and the general suitability of specific performance as a remedy. Nevertheless, echoing Lord Parker’s emphasis on justice and equity, the court scrutinised the conduct of both parties. The plaintiff’s delay in pursuing the claim was deemed a factor against granting specific performance, as it would unfairly prejudice the defendant. Consequently, the court awarded damages instead, illustrating a nuanced application of equitable discretion. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring remedies align with fairness, even when the subject matter is inherently unique.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court of Ghana’s application of specific performance in Smith v Blankson, Eric Ansong v Mr. and Mrs. Gorman, and Bonsu v Agyemang reveals a consistent yet adaptable approach to equitable principles. While the court often upholds the uniqueness of land and property as a basis for specific performance, as per Chitty on Contracts, it equally prioritises Lord Parker’s criterion of justice and equity. These cases collectively demonstrate that equitable remedies are not automatic; they depend on the broader circumstances, ensuring fairness prevails. This balance arguably strengthens the integrity of Ghanaian jurisprudence, offering valuable lessons for students of equity and succession on the dynamic interplay between legal principles and judicial discretion. Indeed, such decisions highlight the importance of context in shaping equitable outcomes, a critical consideration in legal practice.
References
- Chitty, J. (2004) Chitty on Contracts. 28th Edition. Sweet & Maxwell.
- Stickney v Keeble [1915] AC 386, House of Lords.
- Supreme Court of Ghana Law Reports (2007-2008) Smith v Blankson [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 374.
- Supreme Court of Ghana Law Reports (2012) Bonsu v Agyemang [2012] 2 SCGLR 978.
- Ghana Monthly Judgments (2012) Eric Ansong v Mr. and Mrs. Gorman [2012] 41 GMJ 113.
