LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal
Lease—Agreement to lease—Subsequent lease to another—Specific performance of agreement claimed.
Appeals in Civil Cases—Occurrence subsequent to judgment enabling relief claimed—W.A.C.A. Rules, rule 36.
Facts
The plaintiffs sued for specific performance of an agreement for a lease made with the defendant, who denied the agreement. The trial Judge found that there had been such an agreement but owing to a subsequent lease of the premises given to a third party refused specific performance. The plaintiffs appealed against this refusal, and the defendant against the finding that there had been an agreement for a lease.
Subsequently to the judgment the lease to the third party was declared void in another case (and the view of its being void was confirmed on appeal: see the last preceding case, Bassil v. Honger).
Rule 36 of the W.A.C.A. Rules, 1950, reads thus:—
“The Court (viz. of Appeal) shall have power to give any judgment and
make any order that ought to have been made, and to make such further
or other order as the case may require, etc.”
Held
(1) There was ample material before the trial Judge upon which he could properly reach the conclusion that an agreement to lease the premises to the plaintiffs had been made.
(2) The trial Judge was right in holding that the lease to the third party was an impediment to granting the plaintiffs specific performance but that impediment having gone since, it was a proper case for action under rule 36 of the W.A.C.A. Rules, 1950.
Appeal of plaintiffs allowed; appeal of defendant dismissed.
