WOODE vs. DADSON [1974]DLHC449

Date	1974-03-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC449

EDUSEI J.

OPPONG FOR THE APPLICANT.

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLHC449
																																						<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" >WOODE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>DADSON<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 185<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:
24 MARCH 1976.<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">

OPPONG 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the defendant for a stay of execution pending appeal in the
High Court from the judgment of the Rent Magistrate, Accra New Town.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4
December 1975, the rent magistrate sitting at Accra New Town gave judgment for
the plaintiff for the sum of ¢10,250.00 against the defendant and also made an
order of ejectment against him. According to the affidavit of the defendant an
appeal has been lodged against the judgment. In the application of the
defendant a copy of the judgment has not been exhibited and it is almost
impossible for this court to say whether the rent magistrate’s decision can be
shown to be wrong and that the appeal is likely to succeed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is,
however, agreed on both sides that the case originated in proceedings before
the rent officer who took evidence and then sent the proceedings with his
recommendations to the rent magistrate. There is no doubt that the rent
magistrate can only determine the matter after considering the proceedings
before the rent officer, and giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard
on the findings of fact made by the rent officer. The defendant’s contention as
revealed on his affidavit is that he had no opportunity to state his case
before the rent magistrate. His own affidavit shows however that when the case
came before the rent magistrate he pleaded for an adjournment in order to
obtain the services of counsel, and the rent magistrate obliged him. On the
adjourned date his counsel wrote to the rent magistrate asking that the case
should be stood down or adjourned and this the rent magistrate refused. He proceeded
to hear the case. I myself do not see anything wrong in the rent magistrate
refusing to stand the case down or adjourn it especially when he had acceded to
the defendant’s request for adjournment on the previous occasion. It is
becoming the practice of some legal practitioners to write letters to the court
asking for adjournment or requesting it to stand cases down, to suit their own
convenience. The courts, whether the High Court or a district court, must do
their work and legal practitioners cannot, in my view, dictate the pace at
which the courts should work.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
apparent from the defendant’s affidavit that he was in court on the two
occasions that his case came on and this clearly evidences the fact that he was
notified of the proceedings before the rent magistrate and there was therefore
compliance with regulation 40 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369). Indeed
it was the defendant who requested for an adjournment to procure the services
of a counsel. He had every opportunity to state his case on the adjourned date
either by written submissions by his counsel if he was unable to come to court,
or orally in court by the defendant himself. If neither of these was done then
he cannot now complain.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There was
one matter that caused me anxiety when this application came before me on the
first occasion. I wondered whether the rent magistrate had jurisdiction to give
judgment for such a large sum as ¢10,250.00 and I adjourned the application for
the plaintiff’s counsel to satisfy me on that matter. When hearing resumed the
following day the landlord’s counsel drew my attention to section 37 (1) (d) of
the Courts<o:p></o:p>Act, 1971
(Act 372), which gives jurisdiction to a district court grade I:<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">“in all
civil causes or matters relating to the landlord and tenant of any premises or
any person interested in such premises as required or authorised by any law
relating to landlord and tenant.”<o:p></o:p>