SCHOOL OF LAW

COURSE OUTLINE: LAW OF EQUITY AND TRUSTS (FLAW 407)

2023/2024

Lecturers:
1. Dr Ama Hammond – Course Coordinator
• Second Floor - UGSoL
• [email protected];
• [email protected]

2. Mr. Godwin Djokoto

• Second Floor – UGSoL
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

3. Dr. Thomas Stephens

• Second Floor – UGSoL
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

4. Ms. Maame Yaa Mensa-Bonsu

• Second Floor – UGSoL
• [email protected]
• [email protected]

****Office hours for all lecturers are by appointment.

Course Objectives

The overall objective of the course is to furnish students with an in-depth understanding
of the principles of equity, its maxims and remedies, the law of trusts and mortgages, as
well as statutory provisions peculiar to Ghana.

Course Delivery: This course is a combination of lectures, class discussions, tutorials,

and presentations
1|Page
Plagiarism policy

Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and shall be treated as a serious offence.

Appropriate sanctions, as stipulated in the Plagiarism Policy, will be applied when
students are found to have violated the Plagiarism policy. The policy is available at
https://www.ug.edu.gh/aqau/sites/aqau/files/images/UG%20Plagiarism%20Policy-
April%202015.pdf. All students are expected to familiarise themselves with the Policy.

Assessment and Grading

Mid--‐Semester Exam 50%

Final Exam 50%

Grade Numerical Marks (%) Grade Point Interpretation

A 80-100 4.0 Excellent
B+ 75-79 3.5 Very Good
B 70-74 3.0 Good
C+ 65-69 2.5 Fairly Good
C 60-64 2.0 Average
D+ 55-59 1.5 Below Average
D 50-54 1.0 Marginal
*E 45-49 0.5 Unsatisfactory
F 0-44 1.0 Fail

*Although this is a failure grade it may still be accepted as fulfilling the prerequisites for
other courses.

Other Information

Lectures and tutorials in the law of Equity and Trusts are compulsory, and students are
expected to attend lectures at all times and conform to classroom etiquette. Class
attendance will be taken both at lectures and tutorials.

2|Page
GENERAL READING

1. AKP Kludze, Modern Principles of Equity (Kludze Publications 2014).

2. Edmund T Snell, Snell’s Principles of Equity (28th ed, Sweet & Maxwell 1982).

3. Harold G Hanbury, Hanbury and Maudsley, Modern Equity (13th ed, Steven 1989).

4. RE Megary, Megary and Wade: The Law of Real Property (5th ed, Sweet & Maxwell
1984).

5. GW Keeton, The Law of Trusts (10th ed, Professional Books Ltd 1974).

6. James Penner, The Law of Trusts (9th ed, Oxford University Press 2014).

7. M.C. White, Underhill’s Law relating to Trusts and Trustees (18th ed, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth 2010).

8. Jill E Martin, Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity (18th ed, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)

9. FW Maitland, Equity lectures 1 and 2, The Origins of Equity and the Common
Law.

10. HG Hanbury, ‘The Field of Modern Equity’ (1924) 45 LQR 196.

11. Raymond Evershed, ‘Reflections on the Fusion of Law and Equity –After 75 years’
(1954) 70 LQR 326.

12. WS Holdsworth, ‘Equity’ (1935) 51 LQR 142.

13. ES Aidoo, ‘Ghana Law and Trusts for Charitable Purposes’ 10 RGL 109.

14. GR Woodman, ‘Parallel Development In Specific Performance’ (1987) 10 RGL 185.

15. G. Djokoto, The Law of Mortgages in Ghana (Frontiers Printing and Publishing 2017)

3|Page
LECTURE TOPIC 1 - HISTORICAL: THE DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITY

This topic extensively discusses the road map to the formation of equity. It provides
students with in-depth information on medieval equity and the emergence of modern
equity.

1. Introduction
a. Common Law Courts
b. Common Law Procedures

2. Defects in the Common Law

3. The Development of Equity

a. Meaning of equity/Equity
b. Petitioning the King
c. New Procedures
d. New Rights
e. New Remedies

4. Equity and the Common Law

a. Rivalry Between the Courts
b. Earl of Oxford’s Case (1616) 1 Rep Ch 1

5. Common Law Procedure Act 1854

6. Chancery Amendment Act 1858

7. The Judicature Acts 1873-187

8. Defining Characteristics of Equity

a. Supplementary to the Common Law/Follows the Law
b. Acts in Personam/Acts in the Person

4|Page
LECTURE TOPIC 2 - THE MAXIMS OF EQUITY

The Maxims of equity serve as general guiding principles which describe or govern the
manner in which equity operates. This topic will consider, with the aid of decided cases,
some important maxims of equity, such as;

1. Equity will Not Suffer a Wrong To be Without a Remedy

a. Day v Brownrigg (1878) 10 Ch D 294

2. Equity Follows the Law

a. Graf v Hope Building Corporation, 254 NY 1 at 9 (1930) – Per

Cardozo CJ.
b. Amuzu v Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR 141.
c. Djan v Owoo [1976] 2 GLR 401.
d. Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 2 Ph. 774; 41 ER 1143.

3. He Who seeks Equity Must Do Equity

Illegal Loan: Notice to Redeem a Mortgage

a. Vadasz v Pinoor Concrete (SA) PTY Ltd [1995] 69 ALR 678.

b. O’Sullivan v Management Agency Ltd [1985] QB 428.
c. Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P& CR 196.
d. Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129, 136.

4. He Who Comes to Equity Must Come with Clean Hands

a. Loughran v Loughran 292 US 216 (1934) – Brandies J.

b. Cory v Gertcken (1816) 2 Madd. 40; 56 ER 250.
c. Owusu v Akomah [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 525 – Holding 1.
d. Coatworth v Johnson 1886 54 LJ 520.

5. Delay Defeats Equity (Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not the Indolent)

a. The Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54); Section 6 – Exemption for

Equitable Reliefs
b. Smith v Clay (1767) 29 ER 743 - Lord Camden LC

6. Equality is Equity (Equity Does Delight in Equality)

a. Petit v Smith (1695) 1 P. Wms 7 - Lord Somers

b. Conveyancing Act, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 175); Section 14(3)
c. Midland Bank plc v Cooke [1995] 4 All Er 562, Ca.
5|Page
 7. Equity Looks to The Intent Rather Than To Form (Equity Looks At Substance
Not Form)
a. Parkin v Therold (1852) 16 Beav 59, 66-67; 51 E.R. 698, 701.
b. Street v Mountford [1985] 2 All ER 289.
c. Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9.

8. Equity Looks on That as Done Which Ought to Be Done

a. Walsh v Londsdale (1882) 2 Ch D 9

9. Where equities are equal, the first in time prevails

10. Where equities are equal, the law prevails

a. Western Harwood Enterprises v West African Enterprises Ltd [1998-

99] SCGLR 105.
b. Amuzu v Oklikah [1998-99] SCGLR 41.
c. Odoi v Hammond [1971] 1 GLR 375.
d. Nelson v Nelson (1951) 13 WACA 248.
e. Section 24, 25, 36 of Land Registry Act.

11. Equity Acts in Personam

a. Penn v Baltimore 27 ER 1132.

6|Page
LECTURE TOPIC 3 - REMEDIES/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

One of the factors that led to the development of Equity was that the common law remedy
of damages often proved inadequate. Equity, over time, developed a number of special
remedies to deal with the inadequacy of damages. This lesson outlines the different types
of equitable remedies and critically examines their principles:

A. Specific performance
B. Injunctions.
C. Recession
D. Rectification

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Specific Performance is an equitable remedy whereby the court directs or compels a

person to perform an obligation already lawfully undertaken. The topic examines the
various rules that govern the grant or otherwise of specific performance.

Cases
a. Sobotie v Omabegho DC (Land) 1952-55

b. Lartei v Fio [1960] GLR 119.

RULES THAT GOVERN GRANT OR OTHERWISE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

1. There must be a complete and binding contract

a. Short v Morris (1958) 3 WALR 339.

b. Djan v Owoo [1976] 2 GLR 401.
c. Asare v Antwi [1975] 1 GLR 16 CA.

2. Damages must be inadequate

a. Gorman and Gorman v Ansong [2012] 1 SCGLR 174.

b. Kweku Bonsu v Ama Agyemang [2012] SCGLR 978.

3. Applicant must show that he is ready and willing to perform his own obligation
under the contract
a. IBM v Hasnem [2001-2002] SCGLR 393.
b. Adu v Atta [1984-86] 1 GLR 646.

4. Contracts for the Sale of Land

7|Page
 a. Conveyancing Act, 1973 (NRCD 175).
b. Section 1 – Mode of Transfer.
c. Section 2 – Contracts for Transfer.
d. -Section 3(2) – Transactions Permitted Without Writing.
e. -Smith and Others v Blankson [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 374.

5. Part-Performance

Historical
a. Old Position
- Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467.

b. New Position
-Wakeham v Mackenzie [1968] 1 WLR 1175.
-Steadman v Steadman [1976] AC 536.

Ghana
a. Old Position
- Asare v Antwi [1975] 1 GLR 16.

b. New Position
-Djan v Owoo [1976] 2 GLR 401- Edusei J.

6. Part-Performance
a. Walsh v Londsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9.
b. Kotey v Kolete [2005-2006] SCGLR 368.

7. Acts that Constitute Part-Performance.

Woodman: Parallel Developments in Specific Performance.

8. Principle of Mutuality

a. Old Position
-Flight v Bolland (1828) 38 ER 817.

b. New Position
-Lartey v Bannerman [1976] 2 GLR 461.
-Price v Strange [1977] 3 WLR 943; [1978] Ch D 337; 1977 3 AER 311, CA -
Goff LJ.

9. Instances Where Specific Performance Will Not Lie

8|Page
a. Adequacy of Damages
-Gorman and Gorman v Ansong [2012] 1 SCGLR 174.
-Kwaku Bonsu v Ama Agyemang [2012] SCGLR 978; [2012] 51 GMJ 146.

b. Misdescription
-British Bata Shoe v Roura & Forgas [1964] GLR 190.

c. Volunteers
-Soonboon Seo v Gateway Worship Center [2009] SCGLR 278.

d. Illegal and Immoral Contracts

-Zagloul Real Estates Co Ltd v British Airways No. 2 [1998-99] SCGLR
378.

e. Contracts Requiring Supervision

-Redco Ltd v Sarpong [1991] 2 GLR 45.

f. Contracts of Service and Personal Skill

-Lumley v Wagner (1852) 42 ER 687.
-Page One Records v Britton [1968] 1 WLR 157.
-Bani v Maersk Ghana Ltd. [2011] 1 SCGLR 796.
-Private/Public Position.
-Owusu Afriyie v State Hotels Corp [1976] 1 GLR 247 reversed.
-State Hotels Corp. v Owusu Afriyie [1977] 2 GLR 488 CA.

g. Where the entire contract is not specifically enforceable.

-Ogden v Fossick (1862) 45 ER 1249.

Exception
-Wilkinson v Clements (1872) LR; (1872) 8 Ch App 96.

h. Where bona fide purchaser of legal interest for value without notice.
-Busby v Acquah (1954) 14 WACA 574.

9|Page
LECTURE TOPIC 4 – REMEDIES/INJUNCTIONS

An injunction is an equitable remedy that orders a party to do or refrain from doing a

specified act. The lesson discusses the types of injunctions and the principles governing
the grant of injunctions.

1. Objective of an injunction: preservation of status quo

-Preston v Luck (1884) 27 Ch D 497 at 505.

2. Injunction may be:

a. Mandatory
b. Prohibitory or
c. Interlocutory Injunction
-Ekwam v Pianim (no 1) [1996-97] SCGLR 117

3. Test Applied by a Court in Determining Whether an Interlocutory Injunction

Should be Granted

a. Punjabi Bros. v Namih (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 381 (show on balance of

probabilities that you will win the case)
b. Annobil v Annobil (1969) C.C. 27 (test in Punjabi too harsh - just show
prima facie case)
c. Vanderpuye v Nartey [1977] 1 GLR 428 (proper test) (show interest of
justice will be best served if injunction granted)

4. Requirements for the Grant of Interlocutory Injunction

a. 18th July Ltd v Yehans International ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 167

b. Welford Quarcoo v Attorney General & Ors [2012] 1 SCGLR 259
c. Republic v High Court, Koforidua; Ex parte Ansa Otu (Koans Building
Solutions: interested party) [2009] SCGLR 141
d. Owusu v Owusu-Ansah [2007-2008] SCGLR 870

a. Legal or Equitable right

b. Irreparable Injury
-Pinchin v London and Blackwall Ry. Co. (1854) 5 de GM & G 851 at 860 –
Lord Cranworth
- Attorney General v Hallett (1847) 16 M & W 569 at 581 -Alderson B and
Parke B

10 | P a g e
 c. Balance of Convenience/Balance of Justice
-Munro v Wivenhoe and Brightlingsea Ry. Co. (1865) 4 de GJ. & S. 723 at
733– Turner LJ
-Beese v Woodhouse [1970] 1 WLR. 586 at 591
-Saunders v Smith (1838) 3 MY & CR 711 at 728 – Lord Cottenham
-Hilton v The Earl of Granville (1841) CR & PH. 283; 41 ER. 498

5. How to Apply for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction

-Agyei and ors v Similao [2012] 1 SCGLR 127

6. Interim Injunctions: General

-Fenwick v East London Railway Corporation (1875) LR. 20 EQ 544 at 547

Jessel MR.

7. Ex-parte injunctions

-Thomas A Edison Ltd. v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679 at 681

8. Some Factors in Determining Whether Order for Injunction will be Made.

a. Whether or not damages would be an appropriate remedy or not/inadequacy

of damages.

b. Applicant must establish that he/she has a right that is threatened with injury.
-Day v Brownrigg (1878) 10 Ch.D 294
-Thorne v BBC. [1967] 2 AllER 1225
-Redco v Sarpong [1991] 2 GLR 457

c. Difficulty or otherwise of complying with the order

-Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd. [1969] 2 WLR 1437

d. Conduct of the applicant

-Armstrong v Sheppard & Short [1959] 2 QB 834

f. Acquiescence/Laches
-Archibold v Scully (1861) HLC 360 at 383

g. undertaking by defendant
-Jenkins v Hope [1896] 1 ChD. 278

h. Cessure of annoyance

11 | P a g e
 -C.F.C. Construction Co. v Accra City Council [1964] GLR 496

OTHER FORMS OF INJUNCTIONS

1. Quia Timet Injunction

-Attorney General v Nottingham Corporation [1904] 1 ChD 673

-American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon [1975] 2 WLR 316

2. Mareva Injunction

-Mareva Compania Naviera v International Bulkcarriers S.A. [1980] 1 All

ER 21

3. Anton Piller Injunction

-Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] ChD 55 (CA) –

Omrod LJ
-EMI Ltd. v Pandit [1975] 1 WLR 302 – Templeman J.

LECTURE TOPIC - 5 RECTIFICATION

This topic examines the circumstances under which the court will decree the order to
rectify or correct an error in an instrument or document.

LECTURE TOPIC- 6 RESCISSION

This examines the conditions under which the court will declare that one party has the
right to set aside a transaction which, in most cases, has taken place.

12 | P a g e
LECTURE TOPIC 7 - HISTORY OF TRUSTS

READING LIST
1. Kludze, Modern Principles of Equity (2014 Edition)
2. Snell’s Principles of Equity, (28th edition)
3. Hanbury and Maudsley, Modern Equity (13th edition)
4. Megary and Wade, The law of Real Property (8th edition)
5. F.W. Maitland, Equity: A Course of Lectures (1969)
6. G.W. Keeton, The Law of Trusts (9th Edition)
7. H.G. Hanbury, “The Field of Modern Equity” (1929) 45 LQR 196
8. E.S. Aidoo, Ghana Law and Trusts for charitable purposes 10(2-3) RGL 109-136
9. M.C. White, Underhill’s Law relating to Trusts and Trustees (11th Edition)
10. Hanbury’s Modern Equity, (11th Edition; 1981)
11. Hanbury and Martin, Modern Equity (18th Edition; 2009)
12. James Penner, The Law of Trusts (9th Edition; 2014)
13. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, (Vol. II. P 451)

LEGISLATION
1. 1992 Constitution.
2. Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459);
3. Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036)
4. Supreme Court Ordinance, 1876
5. Limitations Act, 1972 (NRCD 54)
6. Administration of Estates Act, 1961 (Act 63) section 96(1)
7. Insolvency Act (2006) Act 708
8. Trustees (Incorporation) Act, 1962 (Act 106)
9. Trustees Incorporation (Amendment) Act, 1993 (P.N.D.C.L. 311)
10. Public Trustee Ordinance, 1952 (No. 24)
11. Charitable Trusts Act, 1868 (s.12) and the Trustee Act of 1843 (s. 1-5 & 7-34)
12. Wills Act, 1971, Act 360

A. DEFINITION AND NATURE OF A TRUST

There is no single definition for trusts. Basically, it describes the relationship between one
party, known as the settlor, another known as the trustee and the third party, known as
the beneficiary. This topic evaluates the various definitions proposed through case law
and distinguished authors and identifies the key elements of a trust.

B. DISTINGUISHING A TRUST FROM OTHER LEGAL CONCEPTS

Another way to identify and understand trusts is to compare it with other legal concepts.
The following legal concepts will be discussed under this topic;
a. Agency
b. Bailment

13 | P a g e
 c. Contract
d. Debt
e. Administration
f. Power

Recommended Cases

1. Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378.

2. Re Cook [1965] Ch 902.
3. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v Selfridge & Co. Ltd [1915] AC 847.
4. Burrough v Philcox (1840) 5 My & Cr. 72, 41 ER 299.
5. Re Weekes’ Settlement [1897] 1 Ch D 289
6. Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistlose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567.
7. Twinsectra v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164.

LECTURE TOPIC 8- CREATION OF EXPRESS PRIVATE TRUSTS

An express trust is created by the express act of the settlor. The topic analyses the concept
of express trusts and the formalities that must be complied with to create such a trust.
The topic also examines the certainty requirements for the formation of a trust. The topic
examines:

a. Testamentary and Inter vivos trusts;

b. Executed (Contingent or Defeasible Interests) and Executory trusts

c. Completely and Incompletely Constituted trusts

Recommended cases

1. Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry (1884) 27 ChD 394.

2. Asante v University of Ghana [1972] 2 GLR 86 .
3. Knight v Knight [1925] All ER 598.
4. Sey v Sey [1963] 2 GLR 220.
5. Gyasi v Quaigraine [1963] 2 GLR 161.
6. Manavi v West African Buildings Ltd & Anor (1965) CC 161.
7. Egerton v Lord Brownley 10 ER 359.
8. Antrobus v Smith (1806) 12 Ves 39.
9. Re Rose [1949] 1ChD 78.
10. Milroy v Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264; 1861-73 All ER 783.
11. Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11.

14 | P a g e
 12. Edwards v Carter [1893] Ac 360.
13. Jones v Lock [1865] 1 Ch App 25.
14. Lambe v Eames (1871) 6 Ch App 597.
15. Re Diggles (1888) Ch D 253.
16. In Re Atkinson (1911) 103 LT 860 ,862.
17. Comiskey v Bowring-Hanbury [1905] AC 84.
18. In Re Last [1958] P 137.
19. Sprange v Barnard (29 ER 320).
20. Palmer v Simmonds (1854) 2 Drew 221.
21. Boyce v Boyce (1849) 60 ER 959.
22. Morice v Bishop of Durham 32 E.R. 947.
23. McPhail v Doulton [1971] AC 424.
24. Re Ball, Hand v Hall [1947] Ch D 228.
25. Mussoorie Bank v Raynor (1882) 7 App Cas 321.
26. Re Beaney [1978] 1 WLR 770.
27. Gateway Worship Center Vrs. Soon (. J4/12/2008) [2009] GHASC 7 (21
January 2009).

LECTURE TOPIC 9 -CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS

Usually, a constructive trust arises by the operation of law as distinguished from the
intentional acts of the parties. It is an equitable remedy as it is imposed by a court where
the defendant cannot conscientiously keep property for himself but ought to allow
another to have the property or a share in it. The topic delves into the circumstances
where such a trust may arise:

a. Breach of fiduciary duty owed

b. A profit from crime

c. Profit from mistake

Recommended cases

1. Eboe v Eboe [1961] GLR 324 HC.

2. Eboe v Eboe [1962] 1 GLR 453 SC.
3. Dzidzienyo v Dzidzienyo [1962] GLR 301.
4. Ansah-Addo v Ansah-Addo [1972] 2 GLR 400.
5. Hussey v Palmer (1972) 3 All ER 70.
6. Keech v Sandford 25 All ER 223.
7. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46.
8. AG For Hong Kong v Reid (1993) 3 WLR 1143.

15 | P a g e
 9. Saaka v Dahali [1984-86] 2 GLR 774.
10. Re Biss [1903] 2 Ch 40
11. Serwa v Hashimu and Another (J4 31 of 2020) [2021] GHASC 3.

LECTURE TOPIC 10 - RESULTING TRUSTS

A resulting trust arises in the absence of an express intention, and the beneficial interest
in a subject matter results back to the settlor or the person who conveyed the assets.
Resulting trusts may be created automatically or impliedly. The lesson investigates the
different scenarios under which the beneficial interest will “jump back” to the settlor.

Recommended cases
1. Kwantreng v Amassah [1962] 1 GLR 241.
2. In re Korangteng (deceased); Addo v Korangteng (2005-2006) SCGLR 10.
3. Cole v Cole [1966] CC 77.
4. Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 WLR 87; [1967] 2 AC 2.
5. Quartey v Armah [1971] 2 GLR 231.
6. Re Vandervell's Trusts (No 2) [1974] Ch D 269.
7. Ramia v Ramia [198] GLR 275.
8. Thornley v Thornley [1893] 2 Ch D 229.
9. Heseltine v Hesseltine [1971]1 WLR 342.
10. Diwell v Farnes [1959] 1 WLR 624.
11. Re Roberts trust [1946] Ch D 1.
12. In Re Sasu-Twum (decd.); Sasu-Twum v Twum [1976] 1 GLR 23.
13. Bennet v Bennet (1879) 10 Ch D. 474.
14. Oppong v Oppong [1992] 1 GLR 83.
15. Ussher v Darko [1977] 1GLR 476.
16. Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] A.C 777.
17. Reindorf v Reindorf [1974] 2 GLR 38.
18. Quartey v Armar [1971] 2 GLR 231.
19. Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] 1 QB 1.
20. Quist v. George [1974] GLR 1.
21. Harrison v Gray Jnr [1979] GLR 330.

LECTURE TOPIC 11 - SECRET TRUSTS

A secret trust arises where evidence of the trust or the beneficiary is not disclosed on the
face of the instrument or the document creating the trust. This topic deals with the two
types of secret trusts (i) fully secret trust (ii) half secret trust. It discusses the requirements
which must be adhered to to make these trusts enforceable.

16 | P a g e
Recommended cases

1. Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] A.C. 318.

2. Re Young; Young v Young [1950] 2 All ER 1245.
3. Wallgrave v Tebbs (1855) 2 K& J 313; 69 ER 800.
4. Moss v Cooper (1861) 1 J &H 352.
5. Ottaway v Norman [1971] 3 All E.R. 1325; (1972) Ch 698.
6. Re D'Amico 1974 2 W.W.R. 559.
7. Re Colin Cooper [1939] 3 AER 586.
8. Re Boyes, Boyes v Carritt (1884) Ch.D 531.
9. Re Keen [1973] Ch 236.
10. Re Stead [1900] 1 Ch 237.
11. Tee v Ferris (1856) 2 K & J 357.
12. Russell v Jackson (1852)10 Hare 204 HC.
13. Riordan v Banon (1876) IR 10 Eq 469.

LECTURE TOPIC 12 - CREATION OF A CHARITABLE TRUST / PUBLIC PURPOSE

TRUST/ PUBLIC EXPRESS TRUST
This topic examines the formalities for the creation of a charitable trust, public purpose
trust and public express trust. Under this topic we explore the enforceability of such
trusts. In the discussion of charitable trusts, the key focus will be on the definition of
charity and whether or not the court will enforce such trusts. In dealing with
enforceability, the Cy-pres jurisdiction of the court will be examined into detail.

Recommended cases

1. Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v Pemsel (1891) AC 531
2. The Rowntree case [1983] 2 WLR 284.
3. Re Girls Public Day School Trust Ltd [1951] Ch 400.
4. Gilmour v Coats [1949] AC 426.
5. Re North Devon & West Somerset Relief Fund Trust [1953] 1 WLR 1260.
6. Re Moss [1949] 1 AER 495.
7. Re Hadden [1932] 1 Ch 133.
8. Re Resch’s Will Trust [1969] 1 AC 514.
9. Re Smith [1932] 1 Ch 153.
10. Re Roberts [1963] 1 W.L.R 406.
11. Re Faraker [1912] 2 CH 488.
12. Re Spence (1979) Ch. 483.
13. Re Fitzpatrick (1984) 6 Dominion Law Reports 644.

17 | P a g e
 14. Canada Trust v Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990) 69 Dominion Law
Reports 321).
15. Re Harwood [1936] Ch 285.
16. Re Jenkins Will Trusts [1966] Ch. 249.
17. Re Pinion (1965) Ch. 85.
18. Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] A.C 406.
19. Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v Attorney-
General (1972) Ch. 73.
20. Thrupp v Collett (1858) 26 Beav 125; 53 ER 844.
21. National Anti-vivasection Society v Inland Revenue Commissioner (1948) AC
31
22. Morice v Bishop of Durham [1804] 32 E.R. 947.
23. Re Astor’s Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch 534.
24. Re Hooper [1932] 1 Ch 38.
25. Re Dean [1889] 41 Ch D 552.
26. Pettingall v Pettingall [1842] 11 LJ Ch 176.
27. Re Thompson [1934] 1 Ch. 342.
28. Re Wood [1949] Ch D 498.
29. Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406.

LECTURE TOPIC 13 -TRUSTEES & BENEFICIARIES

This topic deals with the administration of a trust. It compares the common law and
statutory provisions on trustees in Ghana. It will examine
1. The position of trustees.
2. Termination of trusteeship.
3. Rights of the trustee.
4. Duty of the trustee.
5. Powers of a trustee.
6. Breach of trust and the remedies for such breach of trust.
7. Tracing Trust Property.
8. Defenses to a breach of trust.

Recommended cases
1. F & M Khoury v Jojo (1956) 1 WALR 102.
2. In Re Hazeldine [1918] 1 Ch 433.
3. Chillingworth v Chambers [1896] 1 Ch 685.
4. In Re Earl of Chesterfield’s Trust (1883) 24 Ch D 643.
5. King v Bellord (1863) 1 Hem &M 343 (Hemming& Miller) ;71 ER 149.
6. Re Willis, Shaw v Willis [1921]1 Ch. 44 .

18 | P a g e
7. Stacey v Elph (1833) 1 My & K. 195; 39 ER 655.
8. Re Clout and Frewer (1924) 2 Ch.230.
9. Re Lord and Fullerton’s contract (1896) 1 Ch.D 228.
10. Mallott v Wilson, (1903) 2 Ch. 494.
11. Re Wrightson [1908] 1 Ch. 789.
12. Marshall v Holloway 36 E.R. 681.
13. Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch. 547.
14. Williams v Barton [1927] 2 Ch. 9.
15. Re Dover Coalfield Extensions Ltd [1908] 1 Ch 65.
16. Re Francis 92 LT 77.
17. Bahin v Hughes (1886) 31 Ch D 390.
18. Speight v Gaunt (1883) 22 Ch D727; (1883) 9 App Cas 1.
19. Knight v Earl of Plymouth 21 ER 214.
20. Hindmarsh v Southgate, 38 ER 59.
21. Learoyd v Whiteley (1887) 12 AC 727.
22. Stott v Milne (1884) 25 Ch. D 710.
23. Re Londonderry’s Settlement [1965] Ch. 918.
24. Re Skinner [1904] 1 Ch 289.
25. Re Harari’s Settlement Trusts (1949) 1 AER 430.
26. Howe v Lord Dartmouth 32 E.R 56.
27. Re Earl of Chesterfield’s trusts (1883) 24 Ch D 643.
28. Re Whiteley (1886) 33 Ch D 347.
29. Bartlett v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1980] Ch 515.
30. Nestle v National Westminster Bank [1994] 1 All ER 118.
31. Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch D 270.
32. Fry v Tapson (1884) 28 Ch D 268.
33. Schmidt v Rosewood Trust [2003] 3 All ER 76.
34. Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241.
35. Re Londonderry’s Settlement (1965) Ch. 918.
36. Stephenson v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd (1975) 1 AER 625.
37. Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115; 41 ER 482.
38. Re Smith (1928) Ch 915.
39. Townley v Sherborne (1634)123 ER 1181.
40. Lewis v Nobbs (1878) 8 Ch. D 591.
41. Re Deane (1889) 42 Ch. D.
42. Re Linsley [1904] 2 Ch 785.
43. Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch. D 696.
44. Clayton’s case 35 ER 781.
45. Re Diplock [1948] Ch. D 465.
46. Blake v Gale (1886) 32 Ch. D 561.

19 | P a g e
 47. Re Paulings Settlement trusts [1964] Ch. 303.
48. Re Oatway [1903] 2 Ch.356.
49. Keech v Sandford 25 ER 223.

LECTURE TOPIC 14 - MORTGAGES

The topic explores the definition, nature and formalities of a mortgage both at common
law and under Ghanaian law. It delves into the current law on mortgages in Ghana with
particular focus on statutory provision relating to mortgages. The following topics will
be discussed

1. Definition of Mortgages
2. Creation of Mortgages
3. Rights of the Mortgagor
4. Rights of Mortgagee
5. Priority of Mortgages

Recommended cases

1. Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 ChD 474.

2. Noakes & Co v Rice [1902] AC 24.
3. Seton v Slade (1802) 32 ER 108.
4. Khoury v Mitchaul [1989-90] 1GLR 161, 163.
5. Samuel v Jarrah Timbers and Wood Paving Corp Ltd [1904] AC 323.
6. Jones v Morgan [2002] 1 EGLR 125.
7. Reeves v Lisle [1902] AC 461.
8. Knightsbridge Estates Trusts v Byrne [1939] Ch D 441.
9. Biggs v Hoddinott [1899] 2 Ch D 307.
10. Krelinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage [1914] AC 25.
11. Cityland & Property (Holdings) Ltd v Dabrah [1968] Ch D 166.
12. Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch D 84.
13. Paragon Finance Plc v Nash [2002] WLR 685.
14. Grumah v National Investment Bank and another [1979] GLR 187.
15. Fourmaids v Dudley Marshall (Properties) limited [1957] Ch 317, 320.
16. White v City of London Brewery Co. (1889)42 Ch D 237.

Mr. Djokoto/Dr. Stephens / Ms Mensa-Bonsu/Dr. Hammond

2023.

20 | P a g e