NIMAKO vs. ARCHIBOLD [1966]DLSC1720

Date	1966-06-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1720

MILLS-ODOI JSC

BRUCE-LYLE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

AGADZI FOR THE APPELLANT.

ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1720
																																						<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" >NIMAKO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ARCHIBOLD <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 612<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 JUNE 1966.<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">

AGADZI FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

MILLS-ODOI, BRUCE-LYLE AND SIRIBOE
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Siriboe
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal is from the decision of
Hayfron-Benjamin J. delivered on 11 January 1965, in an appeal brought before
him from the Circuit Court, Accra.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff as landlord of house No. 337, South Labadi Road Estate, claimed
recovery of possession of the said house on the ground that he reasonably
required it for the occupation of himself and his children. The house consists
of two bedrooms, a sitting or living-room and a dining-room; all of which at
the time of hearing, the defendant alone occupied, paying a monthly rent of
£G3. This rent, as admitted by the defendant, is cheap considering the premises
in question and the housing problem in Accra. That however, was not the ground
for asking for possession, because, as further admitted by the defendant, the
plaintiff had never at any time during the tenancy, suggested an increase of
the rent to him. On the contrary, the evidence shows that some time between
July and August 1962, the plaintiff notified the defendant that he required the
house for himself and his family. This was because he has been living with four
of his children (all girls) in his wife’s house at Weija, from where he comes
to work in Accra, which he described as inconvenient, because of the distance.
His wife, according to him, has been persistently demanding money from him.
Furthermore, the plaintiff said he has no comfortable place to stay at Weija,
and also one of his two sons had arrived back from studies overseas, and was
experiencing difficulties in getting accommodation.<o:p></o:p>The trial
circuit judge, his honour Judge Attoh (as he then was) in a well-considered
judgment delivered on 20 July 1963, held inter alia that he was satisfied that
the plaintiff’s grounds in support of his claim for recovery of possession were
reasonable. He accordingly granted the defendant time up to 20 September 1963
to give up possession to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From that
judgment, the defendant appealed to the High Court, on the sole ground that the
judgment was against the weight of evidence. The record shows that the learned
judge, after hearing counsel for the plaintiff very briefly on the question of
alternative accommodation, did not call upon defence counsel, but allowed the
appeal without stating any reasons for his decision which is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Per
curiam: Appeal allowed, judgment of the circuit court appealed against set
aside. It is directed that judgment be entered dismissing the plaintiff‘s
claim. Costs to the defendant in this court and in the court below assessed at
50 guineas. That judgment certainly sinned against the accepted principle of
law that a judge must give reasons for his decision, more so, where he is
upsetting a decision of the court below on appeal. Being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with that judgment, the plaintiff also appealed to this court on
these two grounds: <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
judgment is erroneous and cannot be supported by the evidence on record. <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
learned judge was wrong in holding that the learned circuit judge did not
consider the availability of alternative accommodation for the
defendant-appellant-respondent.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
seem from the above grounds of appeal, and the plaintiff’s counsel’s brief
submission made before the High Court, that the learned judge, like defence
counsel, was of the erroneous opinion that a landlord cannot obtain an order of
the court for possession as in the instant case, unless he can provide the
tenant with an alternative accommodation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>