JUDGMENT
DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.:
This appeal is a simple one as the facts are not contentious. The facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent who is referred to in this appeal as the plaintiff acquired a building plot from the predecessor of the co-defendant. There was no provision in the lease which would entitle the lessor to exercise the right of re-entry should the plaintiff fail to develop the plot. It is rather the Lands Commission which introduced the issue of re-entry for not developing the plot within two years in the schedule to the lease.
The defendant/appellant and the co-defendant/appellant would be referred to in this appeal as defendant and co-defendant respectively. The plaintiff could not develop the plot and the co-defendant served notice of re-entry on the plaintiff to remedy the breach within three months. Barely after two years, 5 months of the issue of the notice of re-entry, the co-defendant served final notice of re-entry on the plaintiff. The co-defendant …