ADDO vs. SABRAH (No. 2) [1968]DLHC10246

Date	1968-03-15
Suit No.	G L R 233 - 234
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC10246

CHARLES CRABBE J.

KOI LARBI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SWANIKER FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1968]DLHC10246
																																						<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" >ADDO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SABRAH (No. 2)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 233 - 234&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:&nbsp;
15TH MARCH, 1968<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KOI LARBI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SWANIKER FOR THE
DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CHARLES
CRABBE J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In this application brought under Order 39,
r. 1 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), I
am asked to review my ruling in Addo v. Sabrah [1968] G.L.R. 154 dated 14 February
1968 to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action
for the ejection of a tenant under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In that ruling I had considered the
provisions of paragraphs 27 and 49 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D.
84).&nbsp; The plaintiff in this case has, for
the purposes of the review, sworn to an affidavit in which he has stated:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"That since the ruling of the learned
trial judge on 14 February 1968 as aforesaid my counsel after the exercise of
due diligence has been able to discover the law pertinent to the issue; and
that my counsel was not then aware of paragraph 56 of the Courts Decree. 1966
(N.L.C.D. 84), which if he had brought it&nbsp;
to the notice of the court the ruling of the learned judge would have
been in my favour."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This paragraph 56 of the Courts Decree, 1966,
is in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"No jurisdiction conferred upon any
District Court shall in any way restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the High
Court or a Circuit Court and each of those Courts shall have in all causes and
matters, civil and criminal, an original jurisdiction concurrent with the
jurisdiction of a District Court."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There can be no doubt about this.&nbsp; The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction,
an original jurisdiction concurrent with that of the district court.&nbsp; If, therefore, the district court, under
paragraph 49 (1) (d) of the Courts Decree, 1966, has jurisdiction, "in all
civil matters relating to the landlord or tenant of any premises or any person
interested in such premises as required or authorised by or under the Rent Act,
1963 (Act 220)"; then the High Court has an original jurisdiction to deal
with such matter.&nbsp; I therefore grant the
review and vary the previous ruling of this court by the substitution, for the
last seven paragraphs of that ruling, of the following paragraph:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"The effect of this is that if there is
any enactment which confers specific jurisdiction on any court or authority or
body the High Court is precluded from dealing with the matter, save, perhaps,
on an appeal.&nbsp; For the purposes of the
instant case paragraphs 27 and 49 of the Courts Decree, 1966, must be read and
construed together.&nbsp; Not only that.&nbsp; One has to read paragraph 56 of the Court
Decree which is in the following terms: 'No jurisdiction conferred upon any
District Court shall in any way restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the High
Court or a Circuit Court and each of those Courts shall have in all causes and
matters, civil and criminal, an original jurisdiction concurrent with the
jurisdiction of a District Court'."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;There is no ambiguity about this
paragraph.&nbsp; I come to the conclusion,
therefore, that the High Court has jurisdiction in all civil matters relating
to the landlord or tenant of any premises or any person interested in such
premises as required or authorised by or under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I award cost of N¢50 against the defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DECISION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Review granted.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;S. K. T.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

</main>