OCANSEY vs. TEIKO [1973]DLHC2335

Date	1973-12-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2335

SARKODEE J.

MRS. OTOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

A. K. OKINE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2335
																																						<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" >OCANSEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TEIKO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
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]
1 GLR 203<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:
14 DECEMBER 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">

MRS. OTOO 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>Judgment
was entered for the plaintiff in this case for the sum claimed being arrears of
rent. The learned magistrate went further and ordered the defendant to vacate
the premises on or about 30 April 1972 even though counsel for the defendant
drew his attention to the fact that the rent had been paid. The registrar of the
court also directed the court’s attention to this fact stating that the whole
amount (i.e. ¢44.00) claimed on the writ had been paid into court. The learned
magistrate paid no heed to this and recorded 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">“However
it is the court’s considered opinion that a substantial breach of the tenancy
agreement was committed by the defendant and both exhibits A and B support that
finding, quite apart from the fact that the amount claimed has been deposited
in court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned
magistrate appealed to this court. The defendant set out four grounds; all of
them, except the last ground, centred around the second ground which 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">“The
magistrate erred in law in that he failed to consider the provision of section
212 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and thereby refused to grant the
defendant relief against forfeiture.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
212 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 &amp; 16 Vict., c. 76), is one of
the sections of that Act preserved by the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372).<o:p></o:p>The
receipt given to the defendant shows that the whole amount claimed including
costs was paid on 3 March 1972 a day before the learned magistrate delivered
his judgment and made the order for ejectment. The receipt was not shown to the
learned magistrate but was tendered in this court and marked exhibit I.<o:p></o:p>As stated
in the headnote of the case of Howard v. Fanshawe [1895-1899] All E.R. Rep.
855:<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">“The
proviso for re-entry on demised premises on non-payment of rent is regarded in
equity as merely a security for the rent, and, therefore, a tenant is entitled
to be relieved against forfeiture on payment of the rent and any expenses to
which the landlord has been put. This right to relief exists whether the
landlord has obtained possession of the premises by peaceable re-entry or in an
action for ejectment. Under the Common Law Procedure Act. 1852, a tenant who
has been relieved shall hold the demised premises ‘according to the lease
thereof made, without any new lease’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned magistrate erred in law in making the order for ejectment when the
lessee had paid all rent in arrears including costs. In such a case the lessee
was entitled to relief against forfeiture.<o:p></o:p>