OWUSU vs. ASANTE [1973]DLHC2341

Date	1973-06-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2341

MENSA BOISON J.

W. Y. AGYENIM-BOATENG FOR THE APPELLANT.

AYIM-OWUSU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2341
																																						<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" >OWUSU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASANTE <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;[1973]
2 GLR 220<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:
11 JUNE 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">

W. Y. AGYENIM-BOATENG FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

AYIM-OWUSU 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the decision of the District Court Grade II, Kumasi, whereby
that court granted an order for possession of a rented room to the landlord.<o:p></o:p>The claim
of the landlord was for the possession of one room only which was reasonably
required for the occupation of the landlord’s nephew. The defence denied any
relationship of the nephew with the landlord and in the alternative asserted
that there was alternative accommodation for that relative. The trial court
rejected the defence and found for the landlord making an order that the tenant
“quits forthwith.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
ground of appeal by the tenant against that decision was that the judgment was
against the weight of evidence. The one submission of counsel for the tenant to
which I may first address myself was that the relationship of the person for
whom the premises were required, being that of a nephew, was not within a
member of the landlord’s family under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
17 (1) (g), of the Act is the pertinent section and provides:<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">“(1)
Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 25 and of section 28,
[which provisions are not relevant
in this appeal] no order against a tenant for the recovery of the possession
of, or for the ejectment from, any premises shall be made or given by the
appropriate Rent Magistrate, or any other Judge of a court of competent
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of any other enactment for the
time being in force, except in any of the following circumstances [the one
relied upon by the tenant being] . . . (g) where the premises are reasonably
required by the landlord for personal occupation as a dwelling house by
himself, a member of his family or any person in his whole time employment,
such premises being constructed to be used as a dwelling house . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A member
of the landlord’s family is defined by section 36 of the Act to mean, “the
father or mother, a wife, husband, child, brother or sister, or such other
person as may be prescribed.”<o:p></o:p>The
grounds for recovery or ejectment under section 17 of the Act should be
satisfied by a landlord as a prerequisite, before the court proceeds to
consider whether or not it exercises its discretion to make an order for the
recovery of the possession or for the ejectment of a tenant. Where the
prerequisite ground has not been satisfied, the trial court does not embark
upon any such consideration of its discretion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
36 as it now stands does not include a nephew in the category of members of the
landlord’s family. That, in the matrilineal pattern of Ghanaian society may
sound odd to deny the nephew who, may possibly inherit the whole estate on the
death of the landlord, the status of his being a member of the landlord’s
family in the sense of being a dependant, while the landlord was alive. Whether
that</main>