NAHUM vs. O. WOLLEY & CO. AND K. WOLLEY & SONS

[His lordship recounted the facts and continued:] In their statement of defence both defendants denied the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim that: “The 2nd Defendants are sub-tenants of the Plaintiff occupying a one (1) door store in House No. D.832/4 Boundary Road, Accra, which had been carved out of a three (3) door store of which Plaintiff is tenant”. I am satisfied, however, that factually and legally the defendants’ denial is groundless and unwarranted, and that the second defendants are subtenants to the plaintiff following Akill’s transfer to them of his interest in that portion of the store having one door which Akill had derived from the plaintiff. It seems to me that the second defendants are legally estopped per rem judicatam by the judgment which was given in their favour in the plaintiff’s action to eject them, from denying the subsistence of the sub-tenancy. The first defendants are also similarly estopped per rem ju...