SAFO AND ANOTHER vs. BADU [1977]DLHC1425

Date	1977-11-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1425

ROGER KORSAH J.

KUSI-MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

A. R. KARIKARI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLHC1425
																																						<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" >SAFO AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BADU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1977]2 GLR 63<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
11 NOVEMBER
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">

KUSI-MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

A. R. KARIKARI 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">

ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>On 6
August 1974, the plaintiff (the respondent here) filed a writ of summons in the
District Court, Grade II, Division III, Kumasi, claiming against the defendant
(the appellants herein) an order of ejectment from house No. O.T.A. 62, Odum,
Kumasi.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
averred in the statement of claim accompanying the said writ that by a will
dated 26 April 1974 of which letters of administration with will annexed were
granted to the plaintiff by the High Court on 22 May 1974, the testatrix, Yaa
Anninwaah (deceased) devised house No. O.T.A. 62, Odum, Kumasi to the
plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff in the said statement of claim that:
“The defendants, by reason of their relationship with the plaintiff’s family,
were allowed to reside in the said premises during the life time of Yaa
Anninwaah (deceased) subject to good conduct.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff further alleged in the said statement of claim that on 27 May 1974,
he wrote to the first defendant asking her to attorn tenant to him, but the
first defendant refused to receive the said letter and furthermore refused to
permit the plaintiff to enter house No. O.T.A. 62, Odum, Kumasi, which house
had been devised to the plaintiff under the aforementioned will.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant was on 13 August 1974, served with a copy of the summons herein, but
she failed to appear in court on 27 August 1974, which was the date specified
on the summons for the hearing of the suit. On that day, the court adjourned
the case to 4 September 1974 for hearing and ordered that a hearing notice be issued
and served on the first defendant, Abena Safo, the appellant herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
record of appeal does not disclose whether or not the court convened on the
adjourned date, 4 September 1974, and if it did, what took place. The next
record of this suit is on 18 September 1974, when with all parties present,
counsel for the defendant sought an adjournment from the court on the ground
that the ownership of the house, the subject- matter of this action, was in
dispute, and that the case was pending before the circuit court for
adjudication. Counsel for the plaintiff denied strenuously the pendency of any
such suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
denial was unnecessary, when it is observed that even if there had been a suit
concerning the ownership of house No. O.T.A. 62, Odum, Kumasi, pending in the
circuit court on 18 September 1974, the determination by the circuit court of
that suit could not have divested the plaintiff of title to the said house,
which title, was vested in him by the grant to him of letters of administration
with will annexed by a court superior to the circuit court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
common law rule is that a tenant who repudiates his landlord’s title is
automatically made to forfeit his lease: see Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant
(26th ed.), Vol. 1, p. 1072. And whereas a merely oral denial of title will not
produce forfeiture in the case of a tenancy for years, it will do so in the
case of a yearly or other periodic tenancy; for the tenant, by denying that he
has a tenancy, is taken to waive any notice to quit, and the landlord can claim
possession at once: see Wisbech St. Mary Parish Council v. Lilley [1956] 1
W.L.R. 121, C.A. and also Doe d. Phillips v. Rollings (1847) 4 C.B. 188 at p.
200. And no relief is available against forfeiture at common law for denial of
the landlord’s title.<o:p></o:p>