ASHLEY vs. JAMES COLLEDGE (COCOA) LTD [1961]DLHC659

Date	1961-07-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC659

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J

H. P. SWANIKER FOR PLAINTIFF

C. C. LOKKO FOR DEFENDANTS

[1961]DLHC659
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]

[1961] GLR 469

DATE: 6TH JULY, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

H.
P. SWANIKER FOR PLAINTIFF.

</div>

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.

</div>

&nbsp;

By the plaintiff’s writ of summons, claim was made for £G100
general damages and £G794 special damages alleged to have been suffered by the
plaintiff as the result of breaches by defendants of covenants contained in a
tenancy agreement dated the 13th November, 1957, entered into between the
parties.

By the statement of claim filed in support of the writ, it was
alleged that by the agreement aforesaid the plaintiff as landlord let his
property known as Ashgrove House to the defendants at the annual rent of £G480;
that by clause 2(c) of the said agreement the defendants covenanted to keep all
the internal parts of the dwelling-house and outhouses in tenantable order and
sanitary condition (fair wear and tear excepted) during the tenancy; and by
clause 2(h) the defendants further covenanted that at the end or sooner
determination of the tenancy they would yield up the premises in good and
tenantable repair, order and condition, together with certain articles set out
in an inventory annexed to the said agreement; that for breaches of certain of
the agreement the plaintiff after giving to the defendants 36 hours notice by
letter dated the 12th May, 1958, as provided by the agreement, proceeded to
determine the tenancy; that on the determination of the tenancy the plaintiff
found the demises “in a terrible state of dilapidation as a result of reckless
misuse in breach of clauses 2(c) and 2(h) of the agreement” and he was
compelled to employ a contractor to put the premises in a tenantable state, and
lost rent at £G70 per month for six months until the contractor completed his
work. Particulars of the damages alleged suffered and comprised in the amount
of £G794 8s. 0d. claimed were detailed in the statement of claim.

“4. Plaintiff failed to maintain the premises adequately in breach
of clause 3(a) of the tenancy agreement, and any damage or disrepair was
contributed to by his own neglect, especially as regards windows and jalousies,
the wood-work of which had warped by reason of the immature timber used, hinges
rusted, and casement stays improperly fixed in the first instance and could not
fulfil their function; 5. Pursuant to the provisions of the Tenancy Agreement
the defendants were under no obligation to decorate the premises; and all
internal timber and woodwork were the responsibility of the plaintiff”.

The statement of defence finally concluded with a denial of
liability for all items of damages set out and claimed in the statement of
claim.

It is clear from the pleadings that both parties respectively
undertook obligations and/or responsibilities for repair and upkeep of the
demised premises and that this is not the ordinary or usual case where the
liability or obligation for repair is on the tenant only. It seems necessary
therefore to examine the terms of the agreement more carefully in order to
ascertain and determine the nature and character as well as the extent or
scope—the full implications in fact of the responsibilities for repair and
upkeep which were undertaken by each party.

Dealing firstly with the obligations and/or responsibilities
undertaken by the plaintiff, they appear to be more extensive and general in
scope under the terms of clause 3(a) of the agreement whereby the plaintiff
covenanted: