OSEKRE vs. SAAH [1967]DLHC1528

Date	1967-03-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1528

EDUSEI J.

R. B. DUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1967]DLHC1528
																																						<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" >OSEKRE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SAAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 144<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:
14 MARCH 1967<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">

R. B. DUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff who is the landlord of house No. C250/4, Kokomlemle, Accra, is
claiming damages for trespass against the defendant who is allegedly unlawfully
occupying his house and he is also asking for an order for recovery of
possession.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
in this case are these: the plaintiff let house No. C250/4, Kokomlemle, to one
Hood, the first witness for the plaintiff. on a monthly tenancy for a
consideration of £G26 or N¢52 per month. Without the knowledge and consent of
the plaintiff the first witness for the plaintiff, let out a part of the said
premises to the defendant. In 1965, the first witness for the plaintiff fell
into arrears for the months of June, July and August and the plaintiff reported
the matter to the rent officer in Accra. The first witness for the plaintiff,
admitted his indebtedness to the plaintiff before the rent officer, but at the
time the matter was being investigated at the rent office the first witness for
the plaintiff had given up possession of the premises, and had asked the
plaintiff to take possession. The defendant, however, stayed on despite a
notice served on him by the first witness for the plaintiff to quit. This
defendant also appeared before the rent officer and pleaded with him to
convince the plaintiff to allow him, the defendant, to occupy the plaintiff’s
premises. The plaintiff would not agree to this contending that he had agreed
to let the premises to a company through an intermediary called John Boadu. It
was at this stage that the rent officer warned the plaintiff that any attempt
by him or John Boadu to throw out the personal effects of the defendant would
be dealt with severely. It must be observed here that at the inquiry before the
rent officer, the first witness for the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay
his arrears of two months to him to enable him, the first witness for the
plaintiff, to make payment to the plaintiff. The amount involved was £G26 for
the two months because the part let to him was at the monthly rent of £G13. The
defendant brought out this amount and gave it to the first witness to the plaintiff,
who passed it on to the plaintiff. The rent officer for obvious reasons which
will be referred to later in this judgment insisted that the plaintiff should
issue the receipt for this sum in the name of the defendant instead of in the
name of the first witness for the plaintiff. The plaintiff unwillingly carried
out the instructions of the rent officer and prepared the receipt in the name
of the defendant and this receipt is exhibit 4.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant is contending that the plaintiff knew of the existence of the
defendant as a sub-tenant in his house but this was strenuously denied by the
plaintiff who in all honesty admitted that on a visit to his house on occasions
he had seen the defendant there but was unaware of his relationship with the
first witness for the plaintiff, the tenant. I believe and accept the
plaintiff’s evidence which is supported by the first witness for the plaintiff
that the defendant was never introduced to him by the first witness for the
plaintiff as his sub-tenant. Counsel for the defendant has argued that at the
time the first witness for the plaintiff left the house the defendant became by
operation of law a tenant of the plaintiff and referred the court to the
definition of a tenant in section 36 of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). Counsel
also referred the court to subsections (5) and (6) of section 17 of Act 220. I
have no difficulty, however, in dismissing the contentions of counsel and hold
that the prerequisite for the application of subsections (5) and (6) of section
17 is that there must have been an order for recovery of possession given by a
rent magistrate or a judge against the original tenant (see section 17 (1) of
Act 220). But this is not the position here. The first witness for the
plaintiff, the original tenant left the premises as a result of a notice to
quit served on him by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The other
point raised by counsel is that the defendant is a tenant within the meaning of
section 36 of Act 220. The point to consider here is this: Can the defendant in
law be called a sub-tenant? If the answer is “yes” then he may come within the
definition of the word “tenant” in section 36 of Act 220; if the answer is “no”
then he is not such a tenant. Section 22 (1) of Act 220 states thus “No person,
in the case of a monthly or shorter tenancy of any premises, shall sub-let such
premises without the written consent of his landlord.” (The emphasis is mine.)
“Premises” as defined in section 36 means “any building, structure, stall or
other erection or part thereof, movable or otherwise, which is the subject of a
separate letting.” There, is, evidence that the tenancy of the plaintiff’s
first witness with the plaintiff was on a monthly basis and there is no
evidence before me that the first witness for the plaintiff sub-let part of the
premises to the defendant with the written consent of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>