BARCLAYS BANK (D.C.O.) vs. THOME [1973]DLCA2368

Date	1973-05-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2368

JIAGGE JA

ARCHER JA

ANNAN J.A.

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLCA2368
																																						<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" >BARCLAYS BANK (D.C.O.) <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THOME <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<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]
2 GLR 137<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:
7 MAY 1973.<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">

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

JIAGGE, ARCHER AND ANNAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from a judgment given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein,
by the High Court, Accra. The plaintiff’s claim was for possession of premises
on the first floor of house No. D 762B/4 Kimberley Avenue, Accra, demised to
the defendants on 16 September 1952 for a term of twenty years with an option
for a further term of twenty years at the yearly rent of £2,415 for the first
ten years payable every six months in advance, and £1,920 a year for the
remaining ten years and any subsequent renewal thereof, also, payable every six
months in advance. The plaintiff claimed that in breach of the covenant in the
lease “To keep the interior of the demised premises and the doors, windows,
fittings and landlord’s fixtures in good and tenantable repair and condition
and to whitewash and paint or cause to be whitewashed and painted such internal
parts that are usually whitewashed and painted,” the defendants extensively
altered the entire structure of the interior of the premises. by pulling down a
number of walls of the residential apartment, by removing some doors and
stopping up others with sandcrete, by erecting new walls where none existed
before, and by constructing an additional ceiling to the entire premises. That
the defendants made all these alterations in “positive defiance of the
plaintiffs’ expressed objections to the said structural alterations” claiming
“an absolute right under the underlease to make the said structural alterations
with or without the consent of the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants averred that the premises were demised for use as a bank, and that
the residential apartments were constructed by the plaintiff, at the request of
the defendants, in accordance with the terms of the underlease. The defendants
denied committing breach of any of the convenants of the underlease but
admitted making improvements and repairs to the interior of the premises. They
denied that the alterations constituted waste, or a destruction of the
premises, or that they affected in any way, the nature and use or the
structure, of the premises.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 14
February 1952, the defendants made certain proposals to the plaintiff, exhibit
B, after having discussed previously with the plaintiff, the matter in issue.
The proposals inter alia requested the construction of a strong room by the
plaintiff in accordance with specifications provided by the defendants. The
plaintiff was also to construct “staff quarters on the same floor . . . without
extra charge” and tiling in the bathroom and kitchen were to be provided by the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>Exhibit
A2 is another letter from the defendants requesting that, “the right to sublet”
be included in the terms proposed in exhibit Al.<o:p></o:p>On 18
April 1952, the defendants confirming an interview with the plaintiff held on
15 April 1952, agreed to 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">“(a) We
would agree to pay ten years rent in advance and you will provide the staff
quarters. We will submit a sketch of the proposed layout to you. <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) We
would also agree to pay any increase in rates and taxes which might be imposed
by the authorities during our tenancy.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 13
October 1952, the defenda</main>