THOME vs. BARCLAYS BANK (D.C.O.) [1976]DLCA448

Date	1976-02-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA448

AZU CRABBE C.J.

ANIN J.A

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.A

FRANCOIS J.A

ABBANJ

OFORI-ATTA FOR THE APPLICANT.

AKYEA-DJAMSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1976]DLCA448
																																						<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" >THOME<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>BARCLAYS BANK (D.C.O.)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 126<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:
23 FEBRUARY 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">

OFORI-ATTA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

AKYEA-DJAMSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

AZU CRABBE C.J., ANIN,
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, FRANCOIS JJ.A. AND ABBANJ<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for a review of the decision of the ordinary bench of this court
dated 7 May 1973 and reported in [1973] 2 G.L.R. 137, by virtue of section 3
(2) of the Courts (Amendment) Decree’ 1972 (N.R.C.D. 101), and it raises the
fundamental question whether a tenant has an absolute right, in the absence of
any prohibitory covenant to the contrary, to adapt or alter to any extent the
premises demised by the landlord. The sub-lease between the parties in this
particular case contained no express prohibitions as to user or alterations of
the premises.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 27
November 1965, the plaintiff - respondent - applicant (hereinafter referred to
as the applicant) filed a writ in the High Court, Accra, against the defendants
- appellants - respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents)
claiming possession of the premises on the first (top) floor of house No. D
762B/4, Kimberley Avenue, Accra. By an indenture of underlease made between the
applicant and the respondents on 16 September 1952, the applicant demised to
the respondents the said premises which comprised two parts - one part suitable
for the formal business of banking, and the other part, constructed by the
applicant at the request of the respondents, to be used for the private
residence of two European members of the respondents’ staff. The respondents
covenanted “to keep the interior of the said premises and the doors, windows,
fittings and landlord’s fixtures in good and tenantable repair and condition.”
The underlease also contained a proviso for re-entry by the applicant in the
event of any breach of the covenants.<o:p></o:p>In
paragraphs (6) and (7) of the statement of claim the applicant alleged 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">“(6) In
breach of the said covenant ‘to keep the interior of the said premises and the
doors, windows, fittings and landlord’s fixtures in good tenantable repair and
condition’ the defendants in or about July 1965 extensively altered the entire
structure of the interior of the said premises in the following manner, that is
to say. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) by demolishing the room described
[above] as ‘the manager’s room’; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) by pulling down a number of walls
of the residential apartment and altering the internal partition thereof by
erecting a number of new walls and rooms; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) by removing a number of doors in
the residential apartment aforesaid and stopping up the doorways with
sandcrete; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(d) by erecting new walls and
constructing new rooms in the remainder of the said premises where no rooms
existed before; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(e) by constructing an additional
ceiling to the entire premises. <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">(7) The
defendants made the aforesaid structural alterations complained of not only
without the consent of the plaintiff, but in positive defiance of the
plaintiff’s expressed objections to the said structural alterations, the
defendants 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>