KARAM AND SONS vs. TRABOULSI AND CO. [1964]DLHC1916

Date	1964-08-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1916

ARCHER J.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

A. C. KUMA (WITH HIM AMISSAH-AIDOO) FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1964]DLHC1916
																																						<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" >KARAM AND SONS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TRABOULSI AND CO. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 513<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">

DATE:
27 AUGUST 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

A. C. KUMA (WITH HIM AMISSAH-AIDOO) FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

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

ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs
claim from the defendants recovery of possession of all those ground floor
stores situated at the corner of Club Road and Cow Lane, Accra; and also claim
double rent under section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act, 1737,1 from 1
September 1963 up to the date of judgment or until possession is delivered by
the defendants. The plaintiffs as sub-lessors by a lease dated 5 December 1957
granted the defendants a term of three years commencing from 1 September 1957
at a rent of £G1,020 per annum. The lease contained an option for a further
term of three years. The defendants exercised their right of option at the
expiration of the first term and took a further term of three years expiring on
31 August 1963.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By a
letter dated 27 August 1963 the plaintiffs reminded the defendants of previous
notices given to the latter to quit. By a reply of the same date, the
defendants informed the plaintiffs, inter alia, that it was difficult for them
to quit and that they wished to stay until they had found other accommodation.
At that stage, the plaintiffs handed over the matter to their solicitors who
threatened action and demanded double rent under the Distress for Rent Act,
1737. The defendants thereupon instructed their solicitors, who by their letter
of 17 September 1963, addressed to the plaintiffs’ solicitors, did not deny
that the lease had expired but contended that the defendants had become
statutory tenants and that double rent was not exigible. It appears also from
exhibits 2 and 3 that the plaintiffs were not prepared to accept any rent for
the period subsequent to 31 August 1963 and therefore returned the defendants’
cheque for £G255 which included rent for a period subsequent to the date of
expiry of the lease.<o:p></o:p>After the
writ of summons had been issued and pleadings closed, the following issues were
approved by the judge who heard the summons for directions: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether or not the defendants are statutory tenants of the
plaintiffs, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether or not the sub-lease has expired, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to double rent
and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to their reliefs.
When the trial commenced, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that
although by paragraph 2 of exhibit A the defendants’ solicitors did not deny
that the lease had expired, yet the defendants by paragraph 1 of their
statement of defence did not admit that the lease had expired. I felt it my
duty to point out to learned counsel for the defendants that it was improper to
“blow hot and cold,” in other words “to approbate and reprobate,” to use a
Scottish legal term. Learned counsel rightly sought leave of the court to</main>