KORANTENG AND OTHERS vs. AGYEMANG [1978]DLHC623

Date	1978-12-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLHC623

BROBBEY J.

NYAMEKYE BAAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

MISS AMPOFO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1978]DLHC623
																																						<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" >KORANTENG AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AGYEMANG<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT, ACCRA <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 130<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:
24
DECEMBER 1978<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">

NYAMEKYE BAAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

MISS AMPOFO 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants were ordered by an Accra district court to vacate house No. C 434/3,
Asylum-Down, Accra occupied by them as tenants. They appealed against that
order. Their application for stay of execution failed and was dismissed by the
same court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
that same application which has been repeated in this court pending the final
determination of the appeal. The sole ground for the application here is that
there has been an appeal against the trial court’s order and that the appeal
has a chance of success.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
answering the motion in this court, Mr. Nyamekye Baah who appeared for the
applicants, contended that the Rent Control Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 138) is the
operative law which governed the case and by section 5 thereof the first
defendant witness erred by ordering the tenants to quit when the respondent had
not complied with requirements concerning the issue and use of rent cards.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Miss
Ampofo who appeared for the respondent was of the contrary view. Her contention
was that P.N.D.C.L. 138 was inapplicable to the case but rather the Rent Act,
1963 (Act 220) was the operative law since under that law a rent card was not a
sine qua non to the making of an order for ejectment, the appeal would not
succeed and so the application should be dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Until the
enactment of P.N.D.C.L. 138 as amended by the Rent Control (Amendment) Law,
1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 163) the main statute which regulated cases like the instant
one concerning landlords and tenants were Act 220 and the Courts Act, 1971 (Act
372). To the district courts the relevant sections of Act 372 were sections 32
(1) and (11) and 37 (1) (d). There is no provision in P.N.D.C.L. 138 and
P.N.D.C.L. 163 which repeals expressly or by even the remotest implication, the
provisions of Acts 220 and 372 relating to cases of landlords and tenants. Mr.
Nyamekye Baah referred to section 7 of P.N.D.C.L. 138 but the section does not,
even inferentially, affect the existing provisions of Acts 220 and 372.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
undisputable impression one gathers from P.N.D.C.Ls 138 and 163 on the one hand
and Acts 220 and 372 on the other hand, is that the legislature has now
established two institutions with equal or co-ordinate jurisdiction to try
cases of landlord and tenant. These are the rent office and the courts
contained in Acts 220 and 372 on the one hand and the rent and housing
committees of P.N.D.C.Ls 138 and 163 on the other hand. This intention of the
legislature is explicit on the face of the statutes referred to and no amount
of construction will change the situation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If the
legislature were minded to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the rent and housing
committee and the public tribunals for cases involving chamber and hall or
single rooms it would have said so in so many words. It is wrong to read into
an enactment provisions which do not exist, especially where such provisions
cannot be assumed to exist by an interpretation of any provision in the
enactment. For this reason, I consider as untenable the submission of counsel
for the applicants that it would defeat the object of P.N.D.C.L. 138 if the
courts are allowed to assume jurisdiction over the same cases involving single
rooms and chamber and hall which are mentioned in P.N.D.C.L. 138. After all,
the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (P.N.D.C.L. 78), allows the tribunal to try the
same criminal cases triable by the courts under the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29)
and yet no one argues that the criminal trial by the courts of criminal cases
triable by the tribunals defeats the intentions of the legislature.<o:p></o:p>