EKA CONSULT®

GHANA LAW SCHOOL PREP

THE MIDNIGHT CANDLE

Vol 1

The midnight candle is a short summary of the relevant elements of examinable Please do not make
unauthorized copies of this material. It is the ideal tool for revision because it helps refresh the memory of
students and its concise structure makes it easy to comprehend. It should not be used in place of textbooks
or study notes but to supplement revision. It is complete with Mnemonics to help students recollect
relevant authorities and cases.

This is only a sample copy. Contact Erosecom Law Academy on 0540875115 for the full version

WE WISH YOU ALL THE BEST IN YOUR EXAM

CONTRACT LAW: CONTRACTS ACTS, 1960 (ACT 25)

Elements of a Contract: Agreement, Section 11— Contracts Need not be in

Intention to create Legal Relations, Writing Except in Certain Cases.
Consideration
Agreement (Offer and Acceptance) Raffles v Wichelhaus (There must be
consensus ad idem)
Offer: Expression of willingness to N.T.H.C v Antwi
contract on terms, legally binding on the Tamplin v James(offer was clear and
parties. unambiguous, def. state of mind immaterial
Bilateral Offer: Exchange of promises N.T.H.C v Antwi
Unilateral Offer: Acceptance by Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
performance Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus
Stores
Invitation to Treat is the Initial Negotiation Fisher v Bell
which may or may not lead to an offer. Partridge v Crittendon
Pharmaceutical society v Boots cash
Chem
Auction without reserve price is an ITT; Harris v Nickerson-ITT
auctioneer is entitled to sell goods to the Warlow v Harrison-Auctioneer bound to
highest bona fide bidder sell goods to highest bona fide bidder
Auction with reserve price is an ITT; Mcmanus v Fortescue-sale shall not take
auctioneer is not bound to sell goods to the effect even when property is knocked
highest bona fide bidder if the bid is below down to the highest bidder if the highest

1
 EKA CONSULT®

the notifies reserved price bid is below the notified reserved price.
Tender Notice=ITT, Tender=Offer

Acceptance: Unqualified and absolute N.T.H.C v Antwi

assent by words or conduct to all the terms
Acceptance must be communicated the Fofie v Zanyo
offeror Entores v Miles Far East Corporation
Acceptance must correspond to the offer Tinn v Hoffman
Counter offer amounts to rejection of offer Hyde v Wrench
and a party cannot revive the original offer Deegbe v Nsiah & Antonelli
by tendering an acceptance of it
Request for additional info not a counter N.T.H.C v Antwi
offer Stevenson, Jacques & Co v Maclean
Acceptance by only offeree or his agent Powell v Lee
Acceptance may be made by conduct Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Postal rule Adams v Lindsel
Acceptance cannot be made in ignorance R v Clarke
of the offer Gibbons v Proctor
Offeror prescribed mode of acceptance Yates v Pulley
only

Termination: An offer may be revoked

at any time before acceptance Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven
Revocation by lapse of time Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore
Revocation by failure to honour conditions Financing Ltd v Simson
Revocation by death of either party Bradbury v Morgan
Revocation by counter offer Hyde v Wrench
Unilateral offer cannot be revoked once Errington v Errington
performance has been completed (or Davilia Ltd v Four Millback Nominees
started) Ltd
Morrison v The Crown

Intention To Create Legal Relations

Common intention of parties-express or Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros
implied (honour clause negates ITCLR*)
Presumption against domestic contracts Coward v Motor insurers
Balfour v Balfour
The presumption that legal relations are Merritt v Merritt
not intended between spouses does not Pettitt v Pettitt
apply where the spouses are not living Acheampong v Acheampong

2
 EKA CONSULT®

together in amity. It also does not apply

under customary law.

Capacity: Ability to incur a legal liability

Minors can contract for necessaries. Chapple v Cooper , Nash v Inman
Minor will be bound be beneficial contract Chaplin v Leslie Freewin Publishers
Not bound if contract is not beneficial De Francesco v Barnum
Minor who misrepresents his age will still Leslie ltd v Sheill (loan defaulter)
not be liable. Nb Restitution may be triggered.
Contract will be enforced if infant Lartey v Bannerman
performs his part of the contract
Contract with intoxicated or person of Mathew v Baxter
unsound mind is voidable. (Person may ratify)

Consideration Currie v Misa (defines consideration)

Consideration must not be past Roscorla v Thomas, Re Mcardle
Except where given at request of promisor; Lampleigh v Braithwaite
or it is an act done by way of business Re Casey’s Patent, Stewart v Casey
Pao On & Ors v Lau Yiu Long
Consideration must move from the Tweddle v Atkinson
promise.
s10 of Act 25 abolishes this position
Consideration need not be adequate Thomas v Thomas 2. Adjabeng v Kwabla
Consideration can be an act of forbearanceWhite v Bluett
Delle & Delle v Owusu-Afriyie
Harmer v Sidway(must be something
real)
If under an existing legal duty, Collins v Godefrey
performance will not amount to sufficient
consideration. Glasbrook brothers v Glamorgan County
Unless performance exceeds normal duty
Sec 9 of Act 25,Although such promise is Kessie v Charmat
enforceable, public policy renders it
nugatory
Uyyi Routledge v Grant
Sec 8(1) just ukuuy of Act 25 provides
that the absence of consideration is not
ground for revocation
Waivers of right for full payment not Foakes v Beer

3
 EKA CONSULT®

backed by consideration will be of no Pinnel’s Case (exceptions to this rule)

effect
Sec 8(2) of Act 25 abolishes this position

A waiver of contractual right & subsequent Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co

reliance b promise will bind the promisor Central London Properties v High Trees
Sec 8(2) of Act 25, A promise once given is Combe v Combe(shield not sword)
binding even before the promise acts on it. Tsede v Nubusa(sword and shield)

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT
Only parties to a contract can take benefit Tweddle v Atkinson
Section 5,6 and 10 modify this position Dunlop Pneumatic v Selfridge
5(1) Third party in contemplation can Koah v Royal Exchange
enforce rights under the contract Assurance(specific 3 party only)
rd

Not an Incidental beneficiary Ejura Farms v Harley. (3rd not in

contemplation)
5(2)(a) resale price maintenance Dunlop Pneumatic v Selfridge
agreement does not confer rights on a 3rd
party
5(2)(b) Rule against vicarious immunity Photo Production v Securicor Transport
3rd party cannot benefit from exclusion
clause.
S 6(a) Where 2 parties confer a right on a 3 rd party who is aware of this and has taken
steps in reliance, any modification to the contract must be communicated & assented t by
the 3rd party
S 6 (b) If a 3rd party brings an action against the original parties, any defence available to
the original parties will be available to him
Sec 10 Consideration need not move from the promise
Nb however that promise in this situation refer to any person-3 rd party included- for whose
benefit a promise is made

TERMS OF A CONTRACT
Term may be determined by relative Oscar chess v Williams(buyer made stmt)
expertise of the parties Bentley v Harold Smith(seller made stmt)
Importance of the statement as indicated Bannerman v White (Sulphur hops)
the representor Ecay v Godfrey(opportunity to inspect)
Time between making the statement and Routledge v Mckay(time interval between
entering into the contract making statement &contract too long)

Breach of a condition =action for Poussard v Spiers

4
 EKA CONSULT®

termination Social Security v CBA

Breach of warranty=action for damages Bettini v Gye
Innominate terms=depends on breach The Hansa Nord
Parole evidence rule states that where a contract is reduced into writing, Oral testimony
will not be admissible to vary the terms of the contract.
Exception is to prove existence of De Lassale v Guildford
collateral contract
To establish the existence of vitiating
factors
Plea of non est factum
Rectification
Suspension of the contract
Customs and usages

IMPLICATION OF TERMS
Terms may be implied into a contract THE Moorcock
Implication by custom Quartey v Norgah
Implication by statute Farah v Robin Hood Mills

EXCLUSION CLAUSE
Exclusion clause must be sufficiently Parker v South Eastern Railway (see
brought to notice of the of the other party back)
Richardson,Spence & Rowntree (folded)
The wider the scope of the exclusion Parties must be notified of exclusion clause
clause, the higher the burden to notify .
The exclusion clause must cover the
breach at hand
Must be reasonable to apply exclusion Anane v Prah
clause
Notice cannot come after contract has been Olley v Marlborough Court
made
The document containing the contractual Chappleton v Barry U.D.C
clause must be such that a reasonable (ticket was a mere voucher)
person will expect it to contain such terms
Consistent course of dealings between the British Crane v Ipswich plant hire (yes)
parties will bound the parties even where Hollier v Rambler Motors(3 dealings
notice was not given in every situation within 5 years not consistent enough)

Contra Proferentum rule Wallis, Son &Wells v Pratt &Haynes

Any ambiguity in the words used will be (exemption clause was designed for a

5
 EKA CONSULT®

construed against the party seeking to rely warranty and not a condition)
on the clause

DURESS Renders the contract voidable

Actual or threatened violence to the Kaufman v Gerson
person, threats of prosecution of P. family (threatened to prosecute her husband)
Economic Duress Barton v Armstrong(will be voidable even
if other factor induced assenting e
contract
D& C builders v Rees(acceptance of part
payment under duress)

Commercial pressure is acceptable Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Proving duress Sibeon & Sibotre

UNDUE INFLUENCE It renders the contract voidable

Actual Undue Influence Morley v Loughman (defendant had
exercised great control over the testator)
Presumed Undue Influence Allcard v Skinner (religious Influence)
Bainbridge v Brown(parental)
Wright v Carter(solicitor client)

UNCONSCIONABILITY: If no man in CFC,Rita Reid v Attitsogbe

his right sense will make it or the other Wood v Abrey
party will accept it, then it is
unconscionable.

MISTAKE: Parties not ad idem Addai v Pioneer Tobacco(as is car

It renders the contract void auction)
Common Mistake-Shared by both parties
Mistake res sua(belongs to the buyer) Cooper v Phibbs
Mistake res extincta(subject matter ) Couturier v Hastie
Seller will be in breach where he warrants McRae v Commonwealth Disposals
existence of subject matter Commission
Mistake as to quality Nicholson &Von vSmitt marriot(royal
voidable if mistake is not substantial napkin)
Bell v Lever Bros(not substantial)

Mutual Mistake -Parties at cross purposes Raffles v Wichelhaus (ex peerless)

6
 EKA CONSULT®

Unilateral-only one party is mistaken

Mistake as to terms Hartog v Colin &Shields(
Offer was made to an identifiable person Boulton v Jones(void)
Mistake as to identity in Contract inter Cundy v Lindsay
absente will be void
inter praesante with a rogue is Phillips v Brooks(voidable) North
(presumption that you intend to deal with Ingram v Little(void) Hutchinson
person present) Lewis v Averay(voidable) Richard Greene
it becomes voidable for misrepresentation
In Hardman v Booth: Court held that no contract was formed with the rogue because, the
contract was intended for a specific principal, whom the rogue had no authority to act for
In Shogun Financing v Hudson: Court held that the defendant gained no valid title,
because the contract between the rogue and the financing company was void
Mistake as to identity and not attributes Kings Norton Metal v Edridge,Merrit
(def only misrepresented his attributes)

Misrepresentation: False statement that Japan Motors v Randolf Motors

induces a contractual agreement(Voidable)
1.It must be a false statement of fact Bisset v Wilkinson(opinion will not
Representor was in position to know e suffice)
facts Esso Petrol v Marden(actionable opinion)
Smith v Land & Hse (desirable tenant)
Future statement can be actionable Edgington v FitzMaurice(no intention to
carry it out
Silence will not be sufficient Smith v Hughes
Failure to communicate change of facts With v O’ Flanagan
2.There must be inducement Horsfall v Thomas
No inducement where buyer exercised Atwood v Small
independent judgement or verification

Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Made knowingly, recklessly or with no belief in its truth

It is essential to prove the element of fraud
Derry v Peek (Plaintiff failed to prove the element of fraud)
Fraudulent misrepresentation gives rise to damage for deceit and is a ground for
rescission.
Negligent Misrepresentation :Existence Esso Petroleum v Mardem
of a duty of care & breach of that duty
There must be a contract to impose duty Nocturn v Ashburn(solicitor failed to
exercise reasonable care)

7
 EKA CONSULT®

No duty no liability Candler v Crane,Christmas

Disclaimer will absolve the defendant Hedley Byne v Heller Bros

Innocent Misrepresentation: An untrue statement made in good faith with honest belief
in its truth, intended to induce a party to enter into a contract
Newbigging v Adam (plaintiff had right to rescission
Plaintiff is entitled to indemnity for all Whittingham v Seale Hayne
losses flowing naturally from the breach

ILLEGALITY.A contract will not be enforced because it is illegal

Contracts to commit crime or tort Berg &Sandler v Moore(false pretence)
Contracts to encourage corruption Kwarteng v Donkor(destoolment plot)
Contracts bono moore Pearce v Brooks(sex worker)
Contracts in restraint of trade Kores Ltd v Kolok(agreement was far
wider than needed, to protect their
interest

DISCHARGE: 1. By performance Cutter v Powell (No completion no

payment)
Can the contract be severed Ritchie v Atkinson
Was there substantial performance Hoenig v Isaac (yes)
Bolton v Mahadevat( no)
Partial performance freely accepted Sumpter v Hedges(not freely accepted
Mabsout v Faras Bros (freely accepted)
Prevention of performance by Promisee Planche v Colburn(abandoned book)

Discharge by agreement
Entering into Another contract Fish & Meat v Ichnusah
substitution of terms or parties to contract Japan Motors v Randolph
motors(novation)

Discharge by Breach:1. Of a condition Poussand v Piers

Anticipatory breach: Accepting the breach Frost v Knight (sorry no wedding)
Perform your part then sue for price agreed White & Carter v Mcgregor
Waiting and hoping for change of mind Avery v Bowden(contract was later
frustrated)

Discharge by Frustration: Impossibility Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers

of performance. no party must be at fault (no frustration bcos one party was at
fault)

8
 EKA CONSULT®

Destruction of subject matter Taylor v Caldwell (music hall burnt

down)
Personal Incapacity Condor v Baron Knights
Derived of its entire commercial purpose Krell v Henry
Herne bay v Huton(another purpose
subsisted)
No frustration where it was foreseeable Walton v Walker
No frustration where it becomes more Dawies Contractors v Fareham
costly
Neither party can sue for breach. 1(2) monies payable shall cease
Modified by section 1(2) and 1(3) 1(3)return of Just expenses incurred by
parties
R.T Briscoe v Essien

REMEDIES
Damages: Monetary award to put parties KLM v Farmex (entitled to damages )
in position as if contract has been Addis v Gramophone(hurt feelings not
performed incl)
All losses flowing naturally from breach Hadley v Baxendale(reasonable
contemplation
Special circumstances known to the def. Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries
Duty to mitigate losses Payzu v Saunders

Discomfort and Disappointment KLM v Juxon Smith

Liquidated Damages Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage &
co
Quantum Meriut City &Country waste mgt v A.M.A
Money Had and received Frafra v Boakye

RESCISSION applies where a vitiating

factor is established. (status quo ante)
Not available where subject matter has Clarke v Dickson
been do altered to change its character
Any act of acceptance after knowledge of Long v Llyod
defect will extinguish right of rescission
Right to rescind may lapse Leaf v International Galleries

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE : Where Redco v Sarpong

damages will not be an adequate remedy Asare v Antwi(no sp where contract is

9
 EKA CONSULT®

(app. To land) incomplete or terms are uncertain)

INJUCTION. Order to do or refrain from

doing a specified act

LAND LAW
Sec 45 of Conveyancing Act defines land
Allodial Title is the highest interest in land
Stool can hold the allodial title Ofori v Appiah
Families can hold the allodial title Akyea Djamson v Duagbor
Allodial title is vested in the stool and not Ofori v Appiah
the paramount chief.
Individuals can hold the allodial title Golightly v Ashrifi
Modes of acquisition of allodial title Ohimeng v Adjei(conquest,discovery
Aidoo v Adjei (purchase)
Compulsory Acquisition Omaboe v Lands Commission(distinction
between compulsory acq. & vesting. SC
Held Vesting was no longer constitutional.
Plaintiff wanted to reclaim lands vested in Article 267(1)
the Government Kpobi tettey Tsuru v A.G(no 2)( Vesting
no longer constitutional but declaration
was prospective)
Loss of Allodial Title Ago Sai v Kpobi Tettey Tsuru
(Acquiescence)
Nartey v Mechanical Llyod

Usufruct
It c0p-reates a burden on the allodial title Oppong Kofi v Attibrukusu
Renders allodial title ‘an empty shell’ Tetteh v Ameni Quarshie
It exists potentially perpetual Manso v Abboye
Acquisition: Implied Grant-subjects only Budu v Caesar
Certain restrictions on implied grant Frimpong v Poku
Restriction on commercial use of land Amartey v Hammond
2.Express grant (subjects and strangers)
Strangers are restricted to demarcated area Oppong Kofi v Attibrukusu
Loss of usufructuary interest Awuah v Adu-tutu (abandonment)

10
 EKA CONSULT®

Total oil v Obeng(non-use is not

abandonment)
Forfeiture (denial of landlord’s title) Adjei v Grumah
Failure of Successor Sahka v Dahali

Nb R v Regional Lands Commission ex parte Kludze.

Definition of stool lands does not include family lands within that area.

CUSTOMARY TENANCIES Tenant only acquires possessory rights

Incidence of Abunu Uncultivated land+ Additional
implements
Produce shared for 1 tenant 1 for
landlord
Incidence of Abusa Uncultivated Land only
2parts for tenant 1 for landlord
Parties can contract out of these Lamptey v Fanyie
Parties can call for account of proceeds Manu v Ainoo

Customary Licenses It can be in the form of building license

It is a gratuitous tenancy in which the
landlord gives his land to the tenant free

STOOL PROPERTY The chief is the representative of the stool

Management of stool property is the Korblah II v Odortei II
primary function of the chief. Article 267
Consent and concurrence of principal Nkwantabisa v Bonsu
elders is required to alienate stool property Nartey v Mechanical Llyod
S45 of Chieftaincy Act, w/o voidable
Alienation with minority is void Akunsah v Botwey
Alienation with majority of principal Adumuah v Tettey kwao
elders
Alienation with only the linguist is valid Amankwanor v Asare
Destoolment of a chief does not R v Court of Appeal ex parte Lands
invalidate any act(alienation)prior to that Commission.
Concurrence of Lands commission can be Nartey v Mechanical Llyod
done before or after alienation It is only an administrative requirement
Order 4 rule 9 (1) C.I 47.chiefs can sue
and be sued in relation to stool property
A subject can sue in special cases Kwan v Nyieni
Chief is accountable to their subjects Owusu v Agyei(where chief neglects to

11
 EKA CONSULT®

sue)
S17(ACT 123) Minster is person to bring Owusu v Agyei (chief can bring action in
action with respect to stool land revenue special cases)

WHEL v WAEL
FAMILY PROPERTY Family head is the agent of the family
Afram v Dadiye(HOF appointed by the
family)
Self acquired property of an intestate is In re atta deceased(matrilineal)
family property Owoo v Owoo
Self acq goes to children or individuals Larbi v Cato
Kusi&kusi v Bonsu
Alienation must be done with consent & Hausa v Hausa(voidable w/o it)
concurrence of principal elders Fianko v Aggrey
Head of family is person to sue & be sued Dotwah v Afriyie
Member of family can sue In re Ashalley Botwe lands, Agbosu v
Kotei
Kwan v Nyieni
Head of family is accountable to members Hanson v Ankrah

Gifts of land under customary law

Intention Sese v Sese (Intention to part completely)
Publicity of the gift In re suhyen stool
Acceptance of the gift Convential and unconvential aseda both
valid
Okai v Okoe

Common law Interests

Leases exist for specified periods Empire Builders v Top king(foreigner
cannot hold more than 50 year lease)
Sec 1 of NRCD 175.Leases must be in writing, except lease period is less than 3 years and
is taking effect in possession. sec 3
S3(2) leases more than 3 years but not in writing can be saved by equitable doctrines
Duodo v Benewah (equitable leases)
Walsh v Lonsdale (an agreement for a lease is as good as the lease
Lessee must have exclusive possession Street v Manford
Equitable leases Duodu v Benewah
Bonsu v Agyemang
Doctrine of specific performance Rosina Aryee v Shell
Implied Covenants of the lessor sec 22

12
 EKA CONSULT®

right to convey, quiet enjoyment, freedom from encumbrances

Implied covenants on the lessee sec 23
payment of rent, repair to adjoining premises, alterations and additions, injury to walls,
assignment and subletting, illegal or immoral user, nuisance or annoyance, and yielding
up the premises
In the absence of express covenant to review rent, a landlord cannot change the rent
payable.
Aboagye Dacosta v Ofori Transport

,The lessee can do the following with the consent of the landlord
ASSIGN: Transfer the unexpired term of the lease interest, The assignee becomes the new
lessee. The assignor retains the contract relationship whereas the assignee retains an estate
relationship with the landlord.
SUB -LEASE Transfer of a lesser term than that of the lessee. No relationship is created
between the landlord and the sub lessee, he can however enforce restrictive covenants
against the sub-lessee.

Termination of Lease Agreement

Expiration
By agreement upon giving notice

Forfeiture Sackey v Ashong

1.Notice of the breach WHEL v WAEL(actual notice)

2.Require the lessee to pay reasonable
compensation except breach is rent related
Sec 30 allows the lessee to apply for relief WHEL v WAEL (this relief is at the
against forfeiture discretion of the court)
Sec 32 allows the Landlord to waive his right to forfeit in respect of that breach. It is not a
continuous waiver
Rents Act, Act 220 activates after the
termination of the lease
The lessor right to immediate recovery of
possession is predicated on sec 17(1)
It canonly be recovered for a landlord Owusu v Asante ( a nephew is not
himself or a member of his family included
It can only be recovered for the purpose it
was let out
Failure of which, the tenant becomes a

13
 EKA CONSULT®

statutory tenant

STAMPING is a prerequisite for nnn

REGISTRATION
Land Registry Act, ACT 122 Registration of instruments affecting land
Land Title Registration, PNDCL 152 Registration of tirle to land in reg. district
Non registration does not does not create Amuzu v Oklikah
any legal right,it does not however nullify Rosina Aryee v Shell
common law doctrine of fraud & notice
Provided you have notice,no amount of Brown v Quarshigah
registration will validate your claim to title

ADVERSE POSSESSION
Squatter takes over your land for a continuous period of 12 years, the right of the owner
(immediate owner only) are extinguished
GIHOC v Assi (Squatter acquires title equivalent to that of the landlord.)
Abbey v Antwi (Adverse possession must be open and overt)
Djin v Musah Baako (Time only stops when the squatter recognizes the rights of the
owner or by commencement of a court action.
Types of Licenses
Common License
Contractual License
Bare License

COMPANY LAW
ACT 179
The company is separate from whoever Salomon v Salomon Lee v Lee Air Farm
formed it. Apenteng v Bank of West Africa Ltd
The company’s property is distinct from Macura v Northern Assurance
the property of its owners
Sec 24 After Incorporation the company shall have all powers of a natural person.
Lifting The Veil
Veil may be pierced on account of fraud Gluckstein v Barnes
Amartey v SSB
Evasion of Contractual Obligations Gillford v Horn
On grounds of Public Policy D.H.N. Foods v Tower Hamlets
Debt per se is not a reason to pierce the Morkor v Kuma
veil

14
 EKA CONSULT®

Interest of Justice Akoto v Akoto

Section 9 Types of Companies

Company limited by shares Liability limited to unpaid balance on
shares
Company limited by guarantee (sec 10) Liability limited to agreed amount
Unlimited companies Liability of members is unlimited

S 12 Promoter
Promoter must act in best interest of the Kumi v New World Investment Ltd
co.
Promoter can contract with the company but Erlanger v New Somebro
must make full disclosure
Gluckstein v Barnes
A.G v Reid
S13 Pre incorporation Contracts Kelner v Baxter
Void at common law Newborne v Sensolid
Sec 13 allows for ratification Jadbranksa v Oysa
Politis v Plastico
nagio (Ratification has to be express)

S 16 Contents of Regulations
S21 Effect of Regulations: Rayfields v Hands(director)
contract under seal between members Hickman v Kent(
An outsider cannot sue on the Eley V Positive(solicitor for life)
regulations(common law)
Act 179. 3rd party with rights under the
regulations he can enforce it
The shareholder agreement prevails over
the regulations when in dispute
Shareholder agreement is binding Cane v Jones
Shareholders acting in unanimity can take Dhalomalu v Pupulampu
decisions without holding a meeting
Shareholders are not part owners of the Short v Treasury Commissioner
company
S 22 Alteration of Regulations
Alteration in contradiction of court order is Luguterah v Northern Engineering
void

S47 Variation of class rights Greenhalgh v Aderne cinemas

15
 EKA CONSULT®

S 25 ULTRA VIRES Ashbury Railway v Riche (void at

common law
Rolled steel v Britsih Steel(directors UV)
Permits ratification under ACT 179 Oxyair &Darko v Wood*
Commodore v Fruit Supply
Anything incidental or consequent upon Bank of West Africa v Appenteng
the main objects/regulations, may unless
forbibben be regarded as intra vires
25(4) member can bring injunction to prohibit an ultra vires transaction

Members sec 30-38

Subscribing to regulations Adehyeman Gardens v Assibey
Buying shares
Membership may be lost by forfeiture Sec 42(non payment of shares after call is
made
Lost by death. Politis v Plastico (Personal representatives
of deceased shareholder have all rights
except attending &voting at mtgs) S
154(b)
Sec 54 Share Certificate is prima facie evidence of membership
Sec 183.Unless otherwise provided, a Adehyeman Gardens v Assibey
director need not be a member of the co.

SHARES sec 39 shares of a member shall be personal estate.

per Sec 22 A company can only increase its shares by altering its regulation
Section 40 shares shall be of no par value

MEETINGS S 149 AGM S 150 EGM

Service of notice of meetings s 155 Accidental Omission will not invalidate s
156
S 154 Persons entitled to notice: Member+ personal representatives+ receiver or trustee+
auditor
S 160 Unless any restriction applies, every member has the right to attend meetings
including outsiders permitted by the chairman.
Any resolution/decision taken under EGM Politis v Plastico
not validly called is void

16
 EKA CONSULT®

Member can requisition ExtraOrdinary S 271-private co. S 297 -public co

Mtg
Members can unanimously convert a board Re Diomatic
meeting into a shareholders meeting

DIRECTORS Section 179 -210

De facto director Commodore v Fruit Supply
Shadow director Re Hydrodam
S181, director must consent to Politics v Plastico
appointment in writing Kwakopon v Sanyo Electric
Company may add to list of disqualified Adams v Tandoh
ppl
Undischarged bankrupt cannot be a R v High Court ex parte Plotner
director
S 185 prohibits summary dismissal of Pinanmang v Abrokwa
directors Adams v Tandoh
In special circumstances, shareholders Assafu Adjaye v Agyekum
acting in unanimity can summarily dismiss
a director
Section 193 Managing director may be summarily dismissed but he remains a director
Director must be given opportunity to be Billy v Kuwor
heard Montero v Redco(not necessarily calling
mtg)
Director will be liable for unauthorized CMS Dolphin v Simonet
dividend transactions
Director must exercise due care and Norman v Theodore Goddard
diligence Dorchester v Stebbings(signed blank
chqs)
Presumption of regularity sec 142 Royal British Bank v Turquand
3 parties need not investigate ‘indoor Boohene v National Savings Bank
rd

dealings’
It will not apply where the 3 rd party has Oxyair & Darko v Wood
actual notice

Sec 203, Fiduciary duties of directors

Directors must avoid conflict of interest Bhullar v Bhullar
situations Sec 205
Sec 207 Director can contract with the company provided there is full disclosure
Sec 210 Proceedings to enforce liability of directors for breach of s203 & s205
Breach of utmost good faith by Director Asafu Adjaye v Agyekum

17
 EKA CONSULT®

Only the company can bring an action for Foss v Harbottle(majority rule)
any wrong done to the company
Sec 217 allows members to bring an action to restrain any unlawful act of the company
Sec 218 allows members/debenture holders Mahama v Soli(minority can also oppress
to bring action (oppression) majority)
Being unhappy does not amount to Okudzeto v Irani Brothers
oppression
Oppression must be consistent and not a Pinamang v Abrokwa
one-time act
Sec 69-74 Directors recommend and shareholders approve payment of dividend
Dividend is only payable when declared Dupaul v Asare
Sec 51

PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
No release from liability on unpaid shares
No reduction in capital of the company Trevor v Whitworth(company share
capital must be kept intact for creditrs)

Winding Up
Private Liquidation Under ACT 179
Sec 247
Deadlock in management can lead to Re Yenidje Tobacco
winding up
Oppression can lead to winding up Ebrahimi v West Bourne Galleries
Shareholder cannot petition for winding up Billy v Kuwor
A company may be restored after being Union Maritime v Rabensteiner
wound up

COMMERCIAL LAW
Agency is the conferment of authority by
one who has it(principal) on another who
consents to act on his behalf.
No agency unless by consent Pole v Leask
Agency creates a fiduciary relationship Bristol v Mothew
Boardman v Phibbs
Distinction between agency and bailment Neoplan v Harmony construction

18
 EKA CONSULT®

Ownership under bailment is not transferred,

only possession is.
An agent may be regarded as a trustee A.G. Hong Kong v Reid
Tabendum v Artis
Agency may be created by consent or Agbemashior v State Insurance
contract Berkley v Hardy
Principal cannot limit international Famous pacific v Teamwork
relationship
Principal cannot by secret reservation, Watteau v Fenwick
deprive him of that authority
Prohibited/Fraudulent acts of an agent not Hopkins v TL Dallas
binding
Agency by actual Authority Hely Hutchison v Brayhead
Actual Authority by virtue of one’s Dominion v NIB
position
Agency by estoppel/apparent/ostensible Buama v Oppong
Sec 26 of Evidence Decree, NRCD 323
Representation by the principal is essential Rama v Proveten &Gen Investment Ltd
Agency by necessity Great Northern Railway v Swaffield
Agency by Ratification China Pacific SA v Food Corporation
Undisclosed principal cannot ratify Keighly,Masted v Durant
To ratify Principal must be in existence Newborne v Sensolid
Kelner v Baxter
Principal must be competent(capacity) at Boston Sea Fishing v Farnham
the time the agent acts
Ratification must be within reasonable Williams v North China Insurance
time
Effect of Ratification
Agent is entitled to compensation Keay v Fenwick
Ratification operates in respect of past acts Irvine v Union Bank of Australia
only and not future acts

Duties of an Agent
Duty to perform his obligation Turpin v Bilton
Duty to obey instructions The Hermione
Duty to Account De Mattos v Benjamin
Duty not to delegate John McCann &Co v Pow

Duty of principal to pay remuneration Way v Latilla

19
 EKA CONSULT®

Sale of goods is a contract between a seller having all rights in the subject matter
transferring it to a buyer in exchange for a price.
SALE OF GOODS ACT, ACT 139
Agreement on a price is as good as the Foley v Classique Coaches
price itself
Sale of goods is distinct from Hire Halaby v Wiredu
Purchase
Property can only pass in ascertained Mock Beer Bar v Gada
goods
Seller must have title at time of sale and Butterworth v Kingsway Motors
not after
S 26 Property will pass when parties intend Geen v Winkel
S 27 risk passes when parties intend Birch v Asempa
S62In F.O.B RISK passes to buyer upon KLM v Birds,Beast
shipment
S 61 C.I.F is a sale of documents not goods Robin Hood Mills v Farah
28(2) Doctrine of estoppel Eastern Distributors v Goldring
S11right to reject if goods don’t match Re Moore v Landaver
description
S12 right to reject if goods don’t match E.S Reuben v Faire Bros
sample
Implied condition of quality thus Buyer Sarpong v Silver Star Ltd
has right to reject if latent defect is found Georgia Hotel v Silver Star
s13

Testate Succession
WILLs Act, ACT 360
A will is a written declaration of intent
Sec (1) POWER TO MAKE A WILL
1(1) 18yrs and intention to make a will
‘/ Banks v Goodfellow (4 elements)
vcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc In re Sackitey (decd)
vc

20
 EKA CONSULT®

cx
1 (2) Mental capacity
An insane person can make a will while Chambers v Queen Proctor
lucid
It will be valid if drawn up while testator Parker v Felgate
was sane but became insane at execution
If beneficiary assist in drawing up a will it Perrins v Holland (rebutted presumption)
only raises suspicion Franks v Sinclair (unable to rebut)
S1(3) duress. undue influence will void a Hall v Hall (threats from wife)
will Parfitt v Lawless (mere relationship does
not raise presumption of undue influence)

Mistake as to content does not invalidate a In Re Phelar

will (revocation clause wrongly inserted)

Sec 2 Formalities of a will

2(1) Will must be in writing and signed by In re Okine (not handwriting of testator)
the testator or another at his direction Barret v Bim (signed by beneficiary)
Any permanent representation with visual Hodson v Barnes,
effect Estate of Murray
A signature is any mark or sign the testator Hirdmash v Charlton
wishes to use In the goods of redding
Sec 2(2) Signature must be at bottom of
will
Anything below it is of no effect

2(3) Testator must sign in the presence of 2 Brown v Skirrow(NO mental+physical )

or more witnesses present at the same time Casson v Dade(mentally but thru
window)
Signing in the presence of only 1 witness In re Awere Kyere
Invalidates the will
2(4)Signing on behalf of testator must be
in his presence with 2+ witnesses present
2(5)Witnesses must attest in the presence In re Essien
of the testator
Witnesses needn’t sign in each other’s In Re Okine
presence
Sec 2(1),2(3) and 2(5) are mandatory In Re Blay Miezah
provisions
2(6) Jurat Clause

21
 EKA CONSULT®

Sec 3 Executors must be 21 or above An executor can attest a will

Witness must be able to see and conscious Hudson v Parker
of the act & to prove by his own evidence
S 3(3) a creditor can be an attesting
witness
S3(4) beneficiary who attests will lose his Croquer v Marquis of Hertford
disposition unless his signature is Kitkat v King
superfluous

Sec 4, INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENTS

Document to be incorporated must be in existence, identified and referred to in the will.
4(2) Oral evidence shall be admissible for the purpose of identification
Sec 5 ALTERATION No alteration made in a will shall have effect unless it is separately
executed in the same manner as is required for the execution of the will, or unless it has been
made valid by the re-execution of the will or by the subsequent execution of some codicil thereto .
Notwithstanding section 2 (2),-position of signature- a separate execution of an alteration shall be
deemed sufficient if it is apparent on the face of the will that the testator intended to give effect by
such execution to the alteration.
S6 Privileged wills member of the armed forces may make a will while on active service
(a) written and unattested, if the material provisions and signature are in his handwriting
(b) written (whether or not in the handwriting of the testator) and attested by one witness;
(c) orally before two witnesses.
6(3) it will remain in force even where he ceases to be a member of the armed forces
6(5) It may revoke an earlier will made by the testator under section 2
In re Wingham(def of active service must be construed in favour of the testator)
In re Jones (Bringing peace to a disturbed area constitutes active service)

Sec 7 Rules of Construction

7(1) A will shall take effect as if it had been executed immediately before the death of
the testator, unless a contrary intention appears from the will.
7(2) where no words of limitation as to extent of interest, beneficiary takes whatever
interest the testator had.
7(7) Presumption of survivorship beneficiary will be presumed to have survived the
testator

22
 EKA CONSULT®

Sec8 Lapse Disposition: Disposition made to a person who predeceases the testator or
which is contrary to law or otherwise incapable of taking effect shall lapse and fall into
residue, unless a contrary intention appears from the will.
8(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) disposition made by a testator to his descendant
(other than for an estate determinable at or before the death of that descendant) shall not
lapse where that descendant predeceases the testator leaving issue surviving the testator,
but shall take effect as a disposition to such issue per stirps,(equal shares) unless a
contrary intention appears from the will.
S9 Revocation A will may be revoked by tearing or other physical destruction by the testator
or by some other person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking it.
coincidence of animus revocandi and Cheese v Lovejoy
physical destruction Hobbs v Knight (tearing of signature)
Destruction must be in the presence of In the Estate of Kremer(no presence)
testator and at his direction Gill v Gill(presence but no direction)
9(3)revocation by another will (revocation
clause)
9(4) A will which is not expressed to revoke a previous will shall not be deemed to have
revoked that previous will except to the extent that it is inconsistent with the previous will.
9(5)(b) Dependent relative revocation Estate of Southerden (mistake of law)
Campbell v French(mistake of fact)
Presumption of destruction Sugden v Lord St Leonards
Sec 10 Revival of revoked will :No will or any part of a will which is in any manner
revoked shall be revived otherwise than by its re-execution or by a written declaration of
intention to revive it, executed in the same manner as a will.
Rogers v goodennough

Sec 13 Provision for defendants upon application being made within 3 yr of grant of
probate, the High Court may make made reasonable provision for maintenance of any
father, mother, spouse or child (18y)of the testator, who may suffer hardship as a result of
no provision or insufficient provision out the estate of the deceased.
In re Agyapong(criteria is strict)
Humphrey bonsu v Quaynor(strict creteria,only a child 18y n below)
Sec 14 Nomination do not form part of the
estate unless specifically stated

Customary Law Wills

Samansiw is a customary will made orally In re Anaman
Elements of valid Samansiw
Summey v Yohuna(in the presence of witnesses(family members) who must hear the
declaration and know its content, acceptance by or on behalf of beneficiary(aseda)

23
 EKA CONSULT®

Absence of Aseda will not invalidate Brobbey v Kyere

samansiw
Knowledge and concurrence of family Abenyewa v Marfo
members Atuahene v Amofa(it is ‘desirable’ to have
the consent and concurrence of the
family)
Aseda and presence of family members is Ababio v Awotwe
not mandatory
Publicity is the recurrent theme of In re Okine
samansiw
Witnesses need not be family members Hausa v Hausa

INTESTATE SUCCESSION
PNDCL 111
Section 2 Partial intestacy(where a Afranie II v Quarcoo
person’s will only covers some of his
property)
S3 All household chattels go to Spouse
&Children
S4 Spouse and children entitled to one If there is more than one house, spouse
house(hold it as tenants in common) and children choose first
Who is a spouse Official solicitor of senior courts v Yemoh
(all ‘wives’ are entitled to a share
Who is a child In re Asante(decd)
A child is a child however born
S5 Dissolution of residue of the estate (a) 3/16 to the surviving spouse;
(b) 9/16 to the surviving child;
(c) 1/8 to the surviving parent;
(d) 1/8 in accordance with customary law:
S6—Intestate Survived by Spouse only (a) 1/2 to the surviving spouse;
(b) 1/4 to the surviving parent;
(c) 1/4 in accordance with customary law
S7—Intestate Survived by Child only 3/4 to surviving child
1/8 to surviving parent
1/8 in accordance with customary law
S8 Intestate survived by Parent only 3/4 to surviving parent
1/4 in accordance with customary law

24
 EKA CONSULT®

S 9 Where no customary law is applicable, beneficiaries’ under 5,6,7,8 will share the
residue in equal shares
Section 10—Where Customary Law (a) that family to which the intestate
provides for Succession by Family. belonged or community of which he was a
member;
(b) intestate who, was a member of two
customary law communities for the
purposes of succession, both are entitled
(c) an intestate not being a member of any
family, the family with which the intestate
was identified at the time of his death or,
to the families of his parents or failing
that to the Republic.
Customary law does not necessarily mean In re Larbi
the extended family but the law applicable Togbe Akpoma v Gladys Mensah(under
to that community Ewe customary law, children inherit)
Under Akan,the family inherits
The customary successor is the positional In re Atta Deceased, Kwako v Tawiah
successor but not necessarily the personal
representative

TRUST is a creation of equity where a trustee

holds property on behalf of a beneficiary
Certainties of an express trust = Certainty of words or intention
Knight v Knight - Certainty of subject matter
- Certainty of objects/beneficiaries

This arises where the beneficial interest is

not completely conveyed or the trust fails.
when a person purchases property in the Asantewaa v Ansong
name of another
Incomplete disposal of beneficial interest Re Vandervell’s Trust
Failure of the trust Re Diplock

CHARITABLE TRUST Lord MacNaghten in Income Tax, Special Purpose

Commissioners of Income Tax v Pemsel “Charity in legal sense comprises four
principal divisions: Trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of
education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial
to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.”
EQUITY

25
 EKA CONSULT®

1. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

Tahiru v Mireku
Day v Brownrigg(not every wrong has a remedy, there must be a legal or equitable right
to protect)
2. Equity follows the law
WHEL v WAEL
Amuzu v Oklikah
3. Where the equities are equal the law prevails
Adu Sarkodie v Karam & Sons
4. Where equities are equal,the first in time prevails
Gyimah &Brown v Ntiri
5. Equality is equity
Petit v Smith
Rimmer v Rimmer
6. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Fofie v Zanyo
7. Equity acts in personam
Anton Pillar v Manufacturing Process(order directed at the indv. to permit inspection)
8. looks on as done that which ought to be done
Walsh v Lonsdale

9. He who seeks equity must do equity

Hasnem Ent v IBM Corp
10. Delay defeats equity
Lartey v Fio (30 yrs)
11. Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form
Francois v Bank of West Africa
12. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation.
Snowden v Snowden

LAW OF TORTS
Battery intentional application of force to another person.
Direct act of defendant Scott v Shepherd (lighted squid)
Voluntary Act Gibbons v Pepper (not voluntary, D did not

26
 EKA CONSULT®

whip or spur the horse)

Defendant must have acted intentionally (or Letang v Cooper (negligence rather than
negligently) trespass)
Wilson v Pringle(hostility is required)
Physical Contact Pursell v horn
Cole v Turner
Absence of consent Christopher v Bare
Presumption of consent to all non-hostile Wiifin v Kincard
contact.

Assault act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the
infliction of a battery on him by the defendant.
Reasonable Apprehension of imminent Collins v Wilcock
Battery
Mere words will not suffice R v Meade(Words n taunting songs not
sufficient)
R v Ireland(silence can amount to assault-
prank call
Real possibility of inflicting harm Stephen v Myers (reasonable apprehension, D
clinched fist n was advancing towards P
Thomas v NUM (no reasonable apprehension)
Tuberville v Savage
The act must be direct or negligent Miller v A.G

False Imprisonment Unlawful constraint of another’s freedom of movement from a

particular place.
Unlawful restraint Herd v Weardale Steel and Co(lawful)
No reasonable means of escape Bird v Jones
Knowledge of confinement Meering v Graham-White Aviation Co.

Trespass to Land (Direct interference with land in possession of another without permission.)
Direct act Pickering v rudd (air ballon over property) .no
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco (protruding sign
post)yes
Positive Act (Omission will not suffice) Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd
Physical Interference Cox v Mousley
Interference must be negligent or intentional Westripp v Baldock
Lack of Consent
Possession Entick v Carrington
Defenses : License

27
 EKA CONSULT®

Necessity Rigbey v Chief Constable of Northampton

DEFAMATION: It is a publication without justification or lawful excuse calculated to injure the

reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt (Parmiter v
Coupland)Parke J
1.Statement must be defamatory Sim v Stretch(right thinking members of
(statement taken as a whole is defamatory) society)
Alexander v North Eastern Railway
2.Statement must refer to the claimant Tournier v National Provencial Bank
Reasonable inference can be made Hulton v Jones
3.There must be publication of defamatory Theaker v Richardson(wife was foreseeable)
words. (test of foreseeability) Huth v Huth (butler was unforeseeable)
Liability for publication unless defendant can show that publication was not through their
negligence and they did not know it contained defamatory words
No liability for republication if authorized Slipper v BBC
Slander requires proof of special damage, however under customary law it is actionable
per se
Actionable per se imputation of a crime Webb v Beaven
Imputation of loathsome disease Bloodworth v Gray
Imputation of unchastity Kerr v kenedy
False imputation of a crime
Slander is actionable per se under Ampong v Abora(slave)
customary law Wankyiwaa v Wereduwaa
Words spoken in heat of passion (not actionable) Bonsu v Forson (useless lawyer)

Libel
DEFENCES: Truth/Justification

Fair Comment on matter of public interest Slim v Daily Telegraph

Trespass to Chattel: Direct and intentional interference with goods in possession of

another
Direct and intentional Kirk v Gregory
Interference with goods William Leitch v Leydon
Interference with possession and not Wilson v Lomback
ownership

Detinue: Unjustified detention of Houghland v Low

claimant’s goods
Conversion wrongful use of claimant’s goods by defendant

28
 EKA CONSULT®

Asportation without use is not conversion Armory v Delamire

Nuisance: Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of his land

Private Nuisance : Disputes between neighbouring land owners
One person's use of their land unlawfully
interferes with another's use of their land.
Locality Thompson Schwab v Costavi(Brothel)
Locality not important where damage is St Helens Smelting v Tippen
caused
Interference is unlawful if it is Christie v Davies(element of malice)
unreasonable. Hollywood fox farm v Emmett(malice)
Ordinary everyday activities cannot be Southwark LBC v Mills 
unreasonable.
Must have a legal interest - usually right to
exclusive possession.
Others, eg lodgers, have no remedy. Malone v Laskey 
Exception Hunter v Canary Wharf
Attempt to widen categories of claimant Khorasandjian v Bush (1993)

Public Nuisance: An act or omission which materially affects the reasonable comfort of a
class of persons. Attorney General v P.Y.A Quarries
Claimants must have suffered more than Lyons v Gulliver
others
DEFENCES
Prescription Sturges v Bridgman
Statutory Authority Marcic v Thames Water Utilities
Coming to meet the nuisance is no defence Bliss v Hall

Rylands v Fletcher : Strict liability under nuisance where a person bring unto his land
something which is harmless while it remains there but is likely to do damage when it
escapes
Defence of Consent Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Act of God Nichols v Marsland
Unforeseen act of third party Perry v Kendricks Transport

NEGLIGENCE It is an omission to do something a ‘reasonable man’ would do

1.Duty of Care Donoghue v Stevenson
Aboagye v Kumasi Brewery
Caparo Test for Duty of Care :
Foreseeability of the claimant Haley v London Electricity Board

29
 EKA CONSULT®

Foreseeability of the Harm Roe v Minister of Health(not foreseeable)

Bourhill v Young
b.Relationship of Proximity Home Office v Dorsett Yacht Co
c.Fair and Just to impose duty of care Macrich Company v Bishop Rock
Nb Giving negligent services will make a Henderson v Merret Syndicate
person liable
2.Breach of duty of care: Objective Test Bolam v friern(doctor not negligent)
Inexperience is immaterial Nettleship v Weston
Use of ‘different skill’ is not negligence Bolam and Bolitho cases 2. Shakoor v Situ
Likelihood of harm occurring Wagon Mound (No 2)
Paris v stepney (one eyed man)
Boulton v Stone (stone throw not
foreseeable)
No liability for Act of a stranger Smith v Littlewoods Organisation
Utility of defendant’s conduct Watt v Hertfordshire(emergency
situation)
Relative cost of Avoiding the Harm Latima v AEC
3.DamagePersonal Injury
Damage to Property Murphy v Brentwood Council
Nervous Shock Paige v Smith
Res ipsa loquitor Mahon v Osbourne
Loss of chance Gregg v Scott

Nervous Shock: Claimant must have

become mentally ill due to shock to his
nervous system
Primary victim rule Paige v Smith
Put in shock for one’s own safety Dulieu v White
Secondary Victim with close ties of Mcloughin v O’brian
love/affection Owens v Liverpool Cooperation(coffin
drop)
Rescuer can claim Chadwick v British Transport Board
Claimant must be foreseeable Dooley v Cammell Laird & Co

CAUSATION Barnett v Chelsea &Kensignton (no

‘But for test’ causal link, would have died anyway)
No liability if def. action is too remote to Mckew v Holland & Hannen
injury
Thin egg skull rule R v Holland
Novus actus interveniens Mckew v Holland &Hannon

30
 EKA CONSULT®

Intervening act of third party Knightley v Johns

DEFENCES
voluntary assumption of risk Cutler v United Diaries
Claimant must have exercised free choice Smith v Baker
Claimant must have known precise risk Stermer v Lawson

Contributory Negligence Butterfield v Forester

Claimant must have foreseen harm to Jones v Livox Quarries
himself
Failed to take care of his own safety James v IMI

ILLEGALITY (ex turpi causa) Pitts v Hunt

EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY Barnett v British Railway Board

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY: Liability of an occupier of land or premises for injury or

loss or damage suffered by people while on their premises
Occupier is any person in ‘control’ of the Wheat v Lacon
land
Occupier must not deliberately harm Bird v Holdbrook(set trap without
trespassers leaving notice)
Common humanity rule Herrington v British Railway Board
Exclusion Clause

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY Wilson &Clyde v English

Provision of competent staff Black v Fife Coal Co
Adequate Plant and material Smith v Baker
Proper system of working &Effective Speed v Thomas Swift Company
Supervision

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Tort committed in the course of Limpus v London General Omnibus
employment
Within authorized limit of Time
No liability if outside scope of Beard v London General Omnibus
employment
Employee on a frolic of his own Joel v Morison
Not liable for criminal acts of employee ST v N. Yorkshire
Employer liable if employee performs Nahhas v Pier House Management
duties in a criminal manner Vassey v Surrey Inn

31
 EKA CONSULT®

No liability for independent contractors Alcock v Wraith

Interference with Trade

Passing off: where a person sells his goods or carries business in such a manner to
mislead the public into believing it belongs to the claimant Maxim v Dye
Inducing a breach of contract Lumley v Gye
Malicious Falsehood: Protects the claimants livelihood , reputation and goodwill in
relation to his business.. Ratcliffe v Evans
Deceit is a misrepresentation made to the claimant who relies on it. Peek v Gunley
Derry v Peek (failed because of insufficient proof of fraud)

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL AND OTHER OFFENCES ACT 29
CRIMINAL AND OTHER OFFENCES(PRO)ACT 30
Section 4 of Act 29: The act shall not be construed strictly as against the republic or as
against the accused but beneficially for both
State v Obeng
Art 19(11) No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is
defined and a penalty is prescribed in a written law
Debrah v Republic
There must be a duty imposed by law for
criminal omission .SEC 79(1) of act 29 R v Lowe (duty imposed by contract)
Special Relationship between the parties R v Macdonald
Actus Reus
The act must be voluntary Bratty v AG(plea of automatism failed)

Mens Rea R v Smith(tenant lacked the mens rea)

INTENT sec 11 of ACT 29
1.Direct intent 11(1): Odupong v Republic The accused knew the gun was loaded and
when he aimed it at his wife and fired knew the inevitable consequence
Sene v Rep Merely starting an unauthorized fight did not show an intention to cause death
2.Oblique Intent 11(2) R v Quaye (jack toller) Knowledge and consciousness that death
is likely to result will be sufficient. (R v Idiong Abortion gone wrong)
3.Intermediate Intent s 11(3)
R v Adekura Firing a round of bullets into a moving car at a time of low visibility was a
dangerous act which could result in death
Akorful v State The law presumes the accused intended to cause harm if a reasonable
person would have exercised more caution .

32
 EKA CONSULT®

R v Gyamfi(large stone into crowd)Sufficient intention to cause harm

Specific intent
R v Steane(he did the act under threat)
Transferred Intent
R v Amateweee(failed assassin)If a person feloniously fires at another but accidentally
kills a third person, who was not intended to be killed, he intends to kill that person

Negligence sec 12 of ACT 29.A person causes an event negligently where, without
intending to cause the event, that person by a voluntary act, done without skill and care
required in the circumstance
1. reckless disregard for human life=manslaughter
R v Adomako: Anesthetist failure to give due care to the task he was performing went
beyond inadvertence.
State v Tsiba Hunter had taken certain precautions to ascertain nature of object before
firing
State v Mensah: Hunter shot without first ascertaining the nature of the object.
2 falls short of reckless disregard for human
Sec 72 A person who negligently and unlawfully causes harm to any other person
commits a misdemeanor

CAUSATION s13(1) A person who intentionally causes an involuntary agent to cause an

event shall be deemed to have caused the event. Houston v Buchanan
13(2) Use of an involuntary agent R v Michael (5-year-old dies after taking poison meant
for another baby,Mother of original baby ‘targeted’ convicted of murder
13(3) for several people cause a singular outcome
R v Yeboah (mob action) no link between accused action and the resultant crime
13(4)-(5)
R v Cato Defendant was held liable because his act-trivial as it was- caused the victims
death.
Impress v Rees : Accused not guilty because of intervening act of third party
R v Boreman & ors; In circumstances where a killing can occur through two possible
means occurring at different times, then the jury must be unanimous on which led to the
death(appellants were convicted, the fight was held to be cause of death and not fire)
R v Waters: Accused got into a fight with the deceased and pushed is boat away from the
ship. The deceased lost balance, fell overboard and drowned. Held: the falling overboard
of the deceased was not caused by the accused
R v Smith Medical negligence will not break the chain of causation unless it can be
shown that the doctor came to kill the victim

33
 EKA CONSULT®

CONSENT sec 14 (as amended by sec 2

of Act 554
Consent obtained by deceit is void Reg v Gomez
Consent obtained by fraud is void R v Williams
A person cannot consent to his own death R v Pike

Take your victim as you find him R v Blaeu (failed to accept transfusion)
Medical treatment unless it amounts to R v Malcherek (victim died before
reckless disregard for life will not break machine was turned off)
chain of causation
Year and a day rule sec 64 R v Dyson

STEALING
S 125 a person steals who dishonestly Ampah v Rep(elements of stealing-
appropriates a thing of which that person is dishonesty -appropriation -property
not the owner belonging to another perspn
There must be animus furandi COP v Gaituah (excess salary)

MURDER S46 creates the offence, S47

defines the offence, s52 murder reduced to
manslaughter
Infliction of unlawful/unjustifiable harm
Intention to cause death R V Doherty(need not be premeditated)
Intention to cause grievous bodily harm DPP v Smith

Manslaughter sec 50 creates the offence,

sec 51 defines the offence
Act must amount to reckless disregard for
life
Provocation sec 53It only applies to R v Duffy
murder and attempted murder Oduro v State
Insults and abusive words not sufficient
There must be no cooling off period Nyameneba &others v The state

GENERAL DEFENCES
Infancy sec 26.(nothing is a crime done by
a person below 12 )

Insanity sec 27
Burden lies on the claimant to prove

34
 EKA CONSULT®

insanity

Automatism
Self-induced automatism will not suffice R v Hennessy
Insane Delusions s 27(b) Rv Moshie

Justifiable use of force Sec 30 -45

Necessity
You must not be the aggresor Melfa v Rep
Ignorance of the fact is a complete defence Nyameneba &others v The state
Inchoate Offences
ATTEMPT: SEC 18 Person who attempts to commit a criminal offence shall not be
acquitted by reason of imperfection of a condition, by reason of circumstances of its use,
circumstances affecting the person or by reason of absence of the person or thing
R v Darko(failure of gun to fire) R v Shivpuri (liable,harmless drugs came instead of
hard
PREPARATION SEC 19: Person who prepares or supplies, or has in his possession,
custody or control, or in the possession or control of another, any instrument, materials or
means which may be used for the commission of a criminal offence commit an offence
and is liable to be punished as if he attempted that offence.
ABETMENT SEC 20 Person who directly or indirectly does such acts to aid or facilitate
the commission of a criminal offence
Instigation R v Nkosiyana & Another
Counselling R v Calhaem
Procuring
Aiding Thambiah v R (forged cheques)
Encouraging R v Clarkson(merely present at scene)
Obeng v Republic (abortion friend)
20(2) Abetment to any criminal offence in pursuance or during the continuance of the
abetment R v Dunnington (getaway Driver)
SECTION 21 ABETMENT AND THE COMMISSION OF A DIFFERENT
CRIMINAL OFFENCE
Was the offence a probable cause or substantially different from the criminal offence he
intended to abet, or within the scope of the abetment
Teye alias Bardjo v Republic The second offence must be within the contemplation of
the participants to hold them both liable, where one participant goes beyond, he alone is
liable.
Agyeman(Geeman) & Nyame (Jaggerpee) v Rep: The second appellant went beyond
the scope of the joint enterprise (criminal assault) thus 2nd appellant liable only for assault.
DPP v Maxwell: Although he did not know the exact crime, his membership of an illegal

35
 EKA CONSULT®

terrorist organization was sufficient.

R v Smith (tear this pub down) appellant guilty of manslaughter because the death of the
pub owner was a probable consequence of their joint enterprise
21(2) where a person abets an unlawful riot or unlawful assembly, he will be liable for
any probable consequence arising out of it. R v Kofi Antwi
Sec 22 Duty to prevent felony
CONSPIRACY SEC 23 Where 2 or more persons act together with a common purpose
for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence, whether with or without the concert or
deliberation each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence.
Blay v Republic: One could only conspire with a human being and not with a spirit.
Azametsi &others v Rep : There was a evidence of a common purpose to kill the
deceased
State v Otchere : co-conspirators need not know each other, it is sufficient if there is a
common unlawful purpose.
SEC 24 PUNISHMENT FOR CONSPIRACY
If the offence is committed, they will be punished for that offence
If the offence is not committed will be punished for abetting that offence.

Plurality of minds acting together for C.O.P v Afari

unlawful purpose Blay v R (you cant conspire with a spirit)
There must be an agreement R v Azametsi ; State v Otchere

Constitutional Law
Human Rights Chapter 5 of 1992
constitution
N.P.P v A.G (CIBA) The directives of state policy are generally
not justiciable.
Ghana Lotto operators v N.L.A The provisions under chapter 6 are
presumed justiciable to the extent that they
can be combined with other provisions in
the const.
Mensima v A.G The law requiring membership of

36
 EKA CONSULT®

cooperative union contravened art 21

CIBA Case The directive of state policy(ch6) become
Date Bah ‘every text in the constitution justiciable when combined with another
should be justiciable provision in constitution
Article 12(2) rights are subject to rights
of others
Article 33 high court has original
jurisdiction in enforcement of human
rights
33(5) rights are not exhaustive, anyone
you can conclusively prove will be
protected.
N.P.P V I.G.P Public order Act infringed on the right to
demonstrate under article 21
Let my vote count Case Any attempt to infringe or restrict any
human right must be brought before HC.
Adjei Ampofo v A.M.A & A.G In matters relating to the enforcement of a
(K.V.I.P case) human right of a public nature, the SC is the
appropriate forum
Osei Boateng v N.M.C Date Bah : supreme court can only interpret
but not enforce
Emmauel Noble Kor v A.G,Justice Duose SC has power to interpret and enforce
human right (Atuguba Jsc)
Martin Kpebu v A.G Section 96(7) of the criminal code(Act 30)
making some offences non-bailable was
declared void
Nana Adjei Ampofo v National House of Section 53(b) of chieftaincy act on contempt
Chiefs and A.G was unconstitutional & void.
Article 1(2) inconsistency = aut. void!
Nana Addo v John Mahama and others A finding under article 2(1) of inconsistency
does not automatically void the act or
omission
N.P.P V G.B.C State must ensure equal opportunity for all
Article 55(11) political parties to air their views
Separation of powers
Asare v A.G (no 1) Conceptions of separation of powers do not
have constitutional backing. Speaker must
swear oath anytime president and vice
president are absent from Ghana per
60(11)-(12)

37
 EKA CONSULT®

Asare v A.G no 2 It is unconstitutional for the minister of

Kpegah ‘no fanciful philosophies can be interior to add to the offices in which the
used to interpret the constitution’ dual citizen cannot hold. It was a wrongful
delegation of parliaments legislative
powers.
Asare v A.G (constitutional review) Court rejected the argument of exclusive
separation of powers. Nothing prevented the
president from establishing a constitutional
review commission

N.P.P v A.G (31st Dec case) Constitution is supreme & its text, spirit
must guide judges at all times.
Constitutionalism: Framework to restrain
the holder of power from abusing it.
Re Akoto Court held the PDA was validly enacted so
it could not restrain the Executive
N.P.P v I.G.P Court must balance restraint on holders of
state power &restrain on citizens in public
interest.
Awuni v W.A.E.C Authorities should have followed laid down
Emweka v K.N.U.S.T procedure thus their action was void for
administrative impropriety.
Opremeh v E.C E.C action was void for failure to follow due
Okane v E.C constitutional procedure
GBA v A.G (Abban case) Having been duly appointed, he could only
be removed through due procedure
Amidu v President Kuffour Council of state approval was given before
the case could be heard
Judicial Review art 127(independence of
judiciary
Marbury v Madison

VOTING art 42 right to register and vote

Tehn Addy v E.C & A.G Only the constitution can curtail the right
(the courts will at all times protect the under art 42, No injunction by a political
right to vote) party should infringe on this right
Ahuma Ocansey v A.G C.I on the residency requirement cannot

38
 EKA CONSULT®

Right of remand prisoners to register trump article 42 Declaration that refusal or

failure of the Electoral Commission to
register prisoners for voting would be a
violation of their rights as citizens of Ghana,
if the only basis of their exclusion from the
electoral process is the fact of their being
prisoners.
Abu Ramadan v A.G.& E.C C.I did not mature before the EC began the
Entire process was invalidated the EC process, N.H.I.S card should not be used
asked to start process afresh because non-citizens can acquire it.
Abu Ramadan v A.G & E.C (no 2) To invalidate the entire register will
disenfranchise a lot of people, Delete only
N.HI.S card holders but give them
opportunity to re-register.
ELECTION PETITION art
99(parliamentary)
Yeboah v JH Mensah Do not couch election petition as matter of
Kpegah Dissenting interpretation. Case thrown out
Wulensi Case High court and court of appeal only forum
(parliamentary) for election petition
Somali Bill Bill v Adamu Dramani Court assumed jurisdiction because plaintiff
alleged infringement of const
Ex parte Collins Dauda Petition the court on a parliamentary
R v High court,Koforidua Ex parte Dr election only after the EC has declared final
Kofi Asare results in accordance with art 99
R v High Court Bolgatanga, ex parte 18(1) of Pndcl 284 is clear.If the basis of the
Hawa Yakuba petition is an allegation of corruption or
bribery ,it should be presented with 21 days
after the date of the alleged payment.
Nana Addo & ors v John Maham & Ors Article 64 only a citizen can challenge
presidential election. The majority held the
opinion that the absence of the presiding
officers signature should not invalidate the
sacrosanct right under article 42. In any
election the most important person is the
voter.
ROCKSON v GFA The Statutes of GFA is accordingly not part
GFA rules prevented members from of the Laws of Ghana but a private
initiating court action agreement or arrangement between
members of a voluntary association to

39
 EKA CONSULT®

regulate the conduct of their affairs.SC not

proper forum
APPIAH-OFORI v A.G The Supreme Court was the competent court
Retirement age of the auditor general of law to remedy an omission in a statute
KPOBI TETTEY TSURU v ATTORNEY Considered as a whole, it becomes very
GENERAL(no 1) clear that the said article 20 (1) has a clear
20(1) conditions to be satisfied for futuristic intention and not concerned with
compulsory acquisition. things of the past.
NARTEY v GATI The provision does not, thus, provide for
A lawyer sued in the lower courts that 30 unlawful discrimination or unlawful
day wait period to recover money was inequality. It represents justifiable
discriminatory to lawyers. discrimination; it is neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable
ASARE BAAH v A.G The offending parts of legislation may be
The plaintiffs as chiefs brought an action severed and struck down, leaving other
that the purported creation of a district by parts intact and unaffected by the exercise
EI by the president was null and void
because it did not follow the procedure set
out in the Local Government act
CHRAJ,A.G v BABA KAMARA For the court to accept the 2nd Defendant’s
The defendant was investigated as a result invitation to place a narrow interpretation
of a publication by a foreign magazine for on the language of article 218(e), would
allegations of fraud and corruption. The amount to doing grave damage to both the
defendant challenged jurisdiction of language and purpose of the provision and
plaintiff on grounds that he was not a would also result in placing on CHRAJ
public official. functional limitations that are not justified
by the ideals and principles underlying the
Constitution and so clearly expressed in the
Directive Principles.
HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL High Court should have referred to the
DIVISION), ACCRA EX PARTE Supreme Court the question raised in the
ATTORNEY GENERAL (BALKAN proceedings before him concerning Article
ENERGY GHANA LTD & OTHERS 181(5). for interpretation, pursuant to
INTERESTED PARTIES) article 130(2), the question of whether or
supervisory jurisdiction of the court that not the power purchase agreement dated
the high court failed to refer constitutional 27th July 2007, between the Government of
issues arising in suit pending before the Ghana and the 1st Interested Party, as well
court to the Supreme Court as the arbitration agreement, constitute ‘an
international business transaction’ within
the meaning of Article 181(5) of the

40
EKA CONSULT®

Constitution, amounts to a breach of the

Constitution.

41