GHANA COLD STORES LTD. vs. IDUN [1971]DLHC2116

Date	1971-07-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2116

TAYLOR J.

ASIEDU FOR THE APPELLANTS.

OWUSU YAW FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2116
																																						<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" >GHANA COLD STORES LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>IDUN <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;[1971] 2 GLR 368<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:
7 JULY 1971.<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">

ASIEDU FOR
THE APPELLANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>By his
writ of summons of 17 September 1968 the plaintiff-respondent hereinafter to be
referred to in this judgment as the respondent claimed against the
defendant-appellants hereinafter referred to as the appellants the sum of’ N¢480.60
“being rents, water and electricity bills, etc. unpaid by the defendants while
occupying plaintiff’s house No. 8 Block 12, Old Amakom, Kumasi.” The writ was
supported by an affidavit in paragraph (12) of which the details of the claim
were spelled out; and in paragraph (15) the respondent applied for the cause to
be placed on the undefended list.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants were duly served on 23 September 1968 and the return date was stated
in the writ of summons as 30 September 1968 thus giving the appellants seven
days to take steps to answer the claim if they had a defence. However, on the
return day Mr. Karikari holding brief for Mr. Mensa-Bonsu for the appellants
applied to the district court grade I presided over by his worship Mr. A.
Essilfie-Bondzie for an adjournment to attempt a settlement. Mr. Adusei holding
brief for Mr. Owusu Yaw for the respondent is not recorded as saying anything
and I shall interpret his silence as acquiescence in the line of conduct
envisaged by the appellants. The case was accordingly adjourned to 14 October
1968. On that day when the case was called Mr. Asiedu appeared for the
appellants and applied again for “an adjournment to enable his clients to
effect settlement.” Mr. Boateng holding brief for Owusu Yaw agreed and the case
was once again adjourned to 28 October 1968. On the said adjourned date the
respondent appeared in person but the appellants were represented by Mr.
Asiedu. The parties are not recorded to have made any application and the court
presided over by his worship Mr. Essilfie-Bondzie apparently on its own motion
decided that the case involved accounts and made the following order: “I hereby
refer the case to a referee to go into accounts between the parties and to
report his findings to the court. The registrar of this court is appointed
referee.” The case was then adjourned sine die.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Meantime
on 23 July 1970 the registrar completed his report. It is an interesting
document as the registrar proceeded apparently as a tribunal and heard evidence
on oath from the respondent and the appellants not merely on the state of the
accounts but on circumstances giving rise to each item of claim. It was in fact
a summary trial of the cause before the registrar and his findings were in the
form of a judgment, he gave reasons for preferring one piece of evidence as
against another and arrived at conclusions which a trial judge dealing not
merely with accounts but with the claim itself would have arrived at if he had
treated the evidence the way the registrar treated it. Typical of the referee’s
approach is the following:<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">“In this
case the plaintiff has proved his case by tendering various receipts for the
expenses he made for electricity and water during the defendants’ occupation in
his house, and during the period of eight months the keys were in possession of
the defendants. Exhibits A, C, D, and E show receipts obtained for locks
bought, bills for electricity and water reconnection paid, the total amount is
N¢131.70. <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">Since
there is no evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants
were in possession of the keys for eight months it is assumed that the
defendants were still in occupation of the premises, and if that is so then the
defendants will be liable for the payment of eight months’ rent reckoning from
November 1967 to June 1968 at N¢40.00 a month, that is N¢320.00. I however do
not accept the plaintiff’s claim of N¢10.00 being cost of repairs he made on
the damaged septic tank, water-closet and the kitchen as this is not supported
by any receipt. I also do not accept the claim of N¢12.00 being cost of water
rate for six months as it is also not supported by a receipt from Water and
Sewerage Corporation. I will say at this stage that the defendants are liable
to the plaintiff in the sum of N¢439.70 being arrears of rent for eight months
(the period defendants were in possession of the keys), cost of elect</main>