DIEP vs. KABA [1973]DLHC2377

Date	1973-05-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2377

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

DARKOH FOR THE APPLICANT.

C.F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2377
																																						<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" >DIEP <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KABA <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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [1973]
2 GLR 190<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 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">

DARKOH FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent in this matter is a tenant of the applicant occupying rooms in the
house of the applicant on plot number OTB. 430, Kumasi. He accumulated his
rents for many months (five years to be precise). As a result of that the
applicant brought an action against him claiming the following reliefs:<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)
Balance of arrears of rent for the said tenancy amounting to £G618 for the
period January 1960 to December 1964 (inclusive).<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) Mesne
profits from the date on which his writ is taken out until judgment.<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">(c)
Ejectment for non-payment of the said rent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Judgment
was given against the respondent and an order of ejectment was made against
him. He has appealed. As a result of the filing of the appeal this present
application was brought by the applicant (the successful plaintiff) praying the
court to be allowed to enforce the judgment in spite of the appeal. I do not
myself find any good cause for delaying or postponing the enforcement of this
judgment and will exercise my discretion in the matter in favour of the
applicant. As far as I can see the grounds of appeal filed do not disclose any
arguable case and the appeal would seem to me to have been lodged with the sole
aim of delaying matters.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
contention of the respondent is that this matter being a matter of landlord and
tenant the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear it, the only courts having
jurisdiction under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), being a court of the rent
magistrate and a circuit court. This contention is obviously misconceived. In
my view the High Court has had jurisdiction in land matters ever since it was
created in 1876. It had concurrent jurisdiction with the native courts in land
matters. But since matters of landlord and tenant were a special kind of land
matter and the native court did not have jurisdiction to entertain them, it was
the High Court alone that was competent to try them. See this matter discussed
by Adumua-Bossman J. (as he then was) in Asante v. Gold Coast Drivers’ Union
(1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 5.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the
magistrates’ courts were given jurisdiction in matters appertaining to rent and
recovery of possession of premises in the early forties the High Court has had
concurrent jurisdiction in matters of landlord and tenant with the magistrates’
courts. The jurisdiction of the rent magistrate being in fact a delegation of
part of the jurisdiction of the High Court. For the district commissioners from
whose courts the present magistrates’ courts evolved were by section 34 of the
Supreme Court Ordinance, 1876 (No. 4 of 1876), Gold Coast Ordinance (1887 ed.),
constituted commissioners of the Supreme Court. Section 34 of the Ordinance
read: “For more facilitating the administration of justice, the Commissioners
shall respectively be ex officio Commissioners of the Supreme Court.” By
section 36 of the Ordinance they were empowered to constitute courts and in
those courts they were to “be deemed to have and may exercise the powers of a
judge of a Supreme Court.” Section 48 of the Ordinance laid it down that:<o:p></o:p>