REPUBLIC vs. ACCRA RENT MAGISTRATE; EX PARTE OFOSU-AMAAH [1965]DLHC1848

Date	1965-10-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1848

ARCHER J.

ODOI FOR DA ROCHA FOR THE APPLICANT.

AMISSAH-AIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1848
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ACCRA RENT MAGISTRATE; EX PARTE OFOSU-AMAAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 613<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:
11 OCTOBER 1965.<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">

ODOI FOR DA ROCHA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

AMISSAH-AIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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>This is
an application for an order of certiorari to remove into this court for the
purpose of quashing an order made by the district magistrate sitting at Accra
as a rent magistrate. The order reads: “Let tenants vacate forthwith.” It is
being sought to quash this order under two grounds, namely:<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">(1) That
the rent magistrate did not act according to natural justice in making the said
order in 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">(a) The
parties to the suit were not notified to be present at the making of the said
order;<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">(b) The
parties were not present and were not given an opportunity to be heard.<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">(2) That
the rent magistrate failed to comply with the provisions of the Rent Act,
1963.1<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
arguments had been heard, the court ordered that the record book of the rent
magistrate should be produced for perusal by the court and the parties. When
the record book and a certified true copy of the proceedings were produced, it
became obvious that a rent officer had investigated a complaint by virtue of
section 5(1) of the Rent Act, 1963, and had referred his findings to the rent
magistrate under section 6 (2) of the Rent Act, 1963, and under regulation 13
of the Rent Regulations, 1964.2<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
argued on behalf of the applicant that section 7 of the Rent Act, 1963,
stipulated that a district magistrate functioning as a rent magistrate for the
purposes of the Act shall have the same powers and observe the same procedure
as a district magistrate has and observes in the exercise of his ordinary
jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Rent Act, 1963, begins with the words “Subject
to the provisions of this Act and any regulations made hereunder.” These words
in my view mean that the procedure to be followed by a district magistrate (when
sitting as a rent magistrate) in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, is
subject to the provisions of the Rent Act and the regulations made thereunder.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section 5
(1) (b) empowers the appropriate rent officer in mandatory terms by the use of
the word “shall” to investigate in such manner as he may think fit complaints
by a landlord against a tenant in respect of arrears of rent and in respect of
any other matter and he shall make a determination thereon. Briefly, under this
section he must not only investigate but should also determine the matter, that
is, make findings. Complaints are not restricted to arrears of rent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 6
September the landlord, A. W. K. English, made a complaint to the rent officer
to the effect that his tenant, Tam &amp; Kapoa Trading Co., had been struck off
as an incorporated partnership on 29 July 1964 and that be wanted vacant
possession of his premises No. D.669/3, Selwyn Market Street. He had given the
tenants one month’s notice as from 14 August 1965. On 8 September 1965, the
landlord Mr. A. W. K. English and a partner of the dissolved partnership Miss
Margaret Quantren appeared before the rent officer who heard both of them. The
other partner, the applicant, was not present although he had been served with
notice of the complaint and the hearing. After having recorded their statements
the rent officer decided as follows:<o:p></o:p>