NAHUM vs. O. WOLLEY & CO. AND K. WOLLEY & SONS [1961]DLHC5422

Date	1961-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5422

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

PLANGE FOR PLAINTIFF.

R. E. BANNERMAN FOR DEFENDANTS.

[1961]DLHC5422
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NAHUM <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">O. WOLLEY &amp; CO. AND K. WOLLEY &amp; SONS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

PLANGE
FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.<o:p></o:p>[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:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“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”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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
judicatam by their own action against the plaintiff and the second defendants
for recovery of the store for remodelling, as well as the compromise, exhibit
C, from denying the subsistence of such sub-tenancy between the plaintiff and
the second defendants. That the plaintiff as statutory tenant to the first
defendants was entitled to create such sub-tenancy appears clearly, firstly,
from the definition in section 3 of the Rent Control Ordinance1(1) under which
appears the following material definitions:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“ ‘let’ includes ‘sub-let’; and ‘letting’ includes ‘subletting’;
‘principal tenant’ means a tenant of premises who has or shall sub-let any part
thereof as a separate holding but shall not include a tenant hereinafter
referred to as a ‘derivative landlord’ who has or shall sub-let the whole of
such premises as one holding; . . . ‘tenancy’ includes a sub-tenancy; ‘tenant’
means any person who leases premises from another person in consideration of
the payment of rent, and includes any person deriving title under the original
tenant, a sub-tenant . . .”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Secondly, from
the provisions of section 11, subsection (5), [reproduced in the headnote
supra], as well as subsection (6) which says:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Any sub-tenant against whom an order or judgment is not
enforceable shall, if he remains in possession after notice of the judgment,
cease to be a sub-tenant of the tenant and become a tenant of the landlord”<o:p></o:p>And thirdly, from the provisions of section 16(1)(c) that a
tenant:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Who is a tenant by virtue of the provisions of subsection (5) of
section 11 of this Ordinance, shall be a statutory tenant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So in the case of Roe v. Russell,2(2) Scrutton, L.J. after an
exhaustive examinat</main>