OSHODEMIRIN vs. TETTEH [1973]DLCA2339

Date	1973-07-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2339

AZU CRABBE JSC

PREMPEH J.S.C

ARCHER J.A.

MUSTAPHA FOR THE APPELLANT.

AHENKORA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLCA2339
																																						<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" >OSHODEMIRIN <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TETTEH <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<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;[1973]
1 GLR 1<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
17 JULY 1972.<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">

MUSTAPHA 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">

AZU CRABBE AND PREMPEH JJ.S.C. AND
ARCHER J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The facts
in this case are in a comparatively small compass so far as they are relevant
to what we have to decide in this appeal, and they are these: On 25 August
1964, the Accra-Tema Development Corporation formally granted the plaintiff
licence to enter plot No. D/129 C, situated at Ashaeman, within the
corporation’s area of administration, and to erect thereon a temporary
dwelling-house. One of the conditions of the licence was that the plaintiff
would pay to the corporation a monthly fee of ten shillings in advance on the
first day of every month. Another important clause in the licence reads as
follows:<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">“This
licence may be either expressly revoked by the Corporation by one month’s notice
in writing expiring at any time, delivered to you the licensee or posted on the
said land, or impliedly terminated by you the licensee, whenever your fee is
one month or more in arrears, or may be expressly terminated by you, the
licensee, giving to the corporation one month’s notice in writing of your
intention so to do.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
trial the plaintiff produced official receipts (exhibits Al-A5) for rents he
had paid for the following periods: August 1964, September-December 1964,
January-May 1965, June 1965-May 1966, June-May 1967. These receipts are dated
28 August 1964, 23 October 1964, 6 May 1965, 5 April 1966 and 16 May 1967
respectively. It follows that, except for the month of August 1964, the
plaintiff’s rent had always been in arrears for more than one month. It also
seems clear that since June 1967, the plaintiff’s rent had been in arrears.<o:p></o:p>Subsequent
to the granting of the licence to the plaintiff to enter plot No. D/129 C,
Ashaeman, the Tema Development Corporation decided that Ashaeman should be
further developed, and in order to ascertain who the previous plot holders
were, the Managing Director of the Tema Development Corporation, Mr. F. K. A.
Jiagge, gave notice to all holders of plots in Ashaeman to the effect 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">“2. It
has come to the notice of the Tema Development Corporation that many plot
holders resident in and outside Ashaeman have not registered their plots. In
view of the development programme envisaged to commence as soon as possible,
all plot holders are requested to register or re-register their plots, whether
developed or undeveloped IMMEDIATELY, giving: [Particulars are stated]. 3. In
the event of failure to submit the above particulars by the end of February
1967, the Tema Development Corporation will assume that the plot has been
abandoned and will reclaim it for re-allocation.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
publication of this notice was by insertion in the local newspapers, radio
announcements and by posters. The plaintiff failed to re-register as requested
by the notice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the plaintiff was that one day when he visited the plot in dispute he saw
the defendant clearing weeds on it, and when he challenged the defendant she
said that she had bought the plot from a certain man for £G60 (¢120.00). At his
request, the defendant accompanied him to the Tema Development Corporation
offices where it was confirmed that the plaintiff was the registered owner of
that plot. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was advised to settle the
matter with him and as a result she offered to buy the plot, but he declined to
sell. The plaintiff said that on a subsequent visit to the plot he again found
the defendant working on the land, and not being satisfied with the defendant’s
conduct h</main>