ANANE vs. ASANTEWAA [1978]DLHC1129

Date	1978-01-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLHC1129

OWUSU-ADDO J.

D. K. DUKU FOR THE APPELLANT.

[1978]DLHC1129
																																						<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" >ANANE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASANTEWAA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 519<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:
19 JANUARY 1979<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">

D. K. DUKU FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the Kumasi district court grade
II dated 28 March 1978, entering judgment in favour of the plaintiff and
ordering the defendant to give up possession of a room occupied by him in house
No. 13, Block 17, Kwadaso.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
ground of appeal argued was that before the commencement of her suit in the
trial court, the plaintiff ought to have made a declaration in compliance with
regulation 18 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369), since her claim was
brought under section 17 (1) (g) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). Counsel for
the appellant submitted that non-compliance with the aforementioned regulation
divested the trial magistrate of jurisdiction to try the case. A fortiori the
whole trial resulting in the judgment appealed against is a complete nullity.
On the second ground of appeal, counsel urged that the plaintiff failed to
discharge the burden of proof that she reasonably required the room for
personal use and referred to paragraph (1) of the particulars of her claim,
which he urged, was inconsistent with her evidence. The inconsistency referred
to is that she averred in her statement of claim that she required the room for
occupation in Kumasi to enable her look after her aged mother. But her evidence
disclosed that her sole reason for bringing the action was that her husband Yaw
Donkor, who used to work as a secretary receiver at Kenyasi in Brong-Ahafo,
where they lived, had left Kenyasi for Kumasi so she also required her room in
Kumasi for her personal occupation in order to be near her husband.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The third
ground of appeal argued was that the trial magistrate failed to consider the
defence put up by the defendant. Considering these grounds in the reverse
order, I find that in the judgment, though short, the trial magistrate dealt
adequately with the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant before
arriving at his conclusions. The third ground therefore fails.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
serious ground for consideration is the question of non-compliance with
regulation 18 of L.I. 369 by the plaintiff. Before considering this ground I
shall first set out the facts briefly: The plaintiff issued a writ of summons
in the trial court claiming recovery of her room being occupied by the
defendant. She averred that she had lived at Kwayem for nearly 30 years looking
after her farms but she needed her room to live in Kumasi in order to look
after her aged mother.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In her
evidence she said the defendant had occupied her room for about 30 years at a
monthly rent of four cedis. Since her husband had left his work as secretary
receiver in Kenyasi to stay in Kumasi she needed the room for her personal
occupation in order to be near her husband. She stressed that prior to the
institution of the action she had given the defendant three months’ notice to
give up possession of the room but he ignored it and refused to vacate the
room.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
defence put up was that the plaintiff wanted the room in order to hire it at a
higher rent. He said the plaintiff demanded ¢200 rent advance and sought to
increase the rent from ¢4 to ¢20 a month but he resisted. He denied that the
plaintiff required the room for her personal occupation. His witness Yaw
Amankwaah confirmed his story as to the demand for rent advance and the
plaintiff’s request for rent increase.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>