GYATO vs. PIPIM [1979]DLHC1063

Date	1979-02-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1063

ROGER KORSAH J.

D. K. DUKU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

K. BERCHIE-ANTWI FOR THE APPLICANT.

[1979]DLHC1063
																																						<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" >GYATO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>PIPIM<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 71<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:
9 FEBRUARY 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 RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

K. BERCHIE-ANTWI 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant-applicant-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, was a
tenant to the respondent. On 9 August 1977, the respondent commenced an action
for ejectment against the applicant under section 17 (1) (a) of the Rent Act,
1963 (Act 220), for non-payment of rent. The said section, in effect, forbids
any court of competent jurisdiction from making an order for recovery of
possession or ejectment against any tenant in accordance with the provisions of
any other enactment for the time being in force except in circumstances
provided under section 17; section 17 (1) (a) gives statutory authority to a
landlord to apply for recovery of possession or ejectment, “where any rent
lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or tendered within one month
after the date on which it became lawfully due.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant admittedly was, at the time of the issue of the writ, eleven months
in arrear with his rent, but had by 18 August 1977, that is, before the
commencement of hearing of the action, paid up all the arrears, leaving only
the mesne profits outstanding.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Were it
not for the exclusion by section 17 “of the provisions of any other enactment
for the time being in force” no problem would be posed by section 111 (1) of
the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), which provides (among other things) that section
212 of the English Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (15 &amp; 16 Vict., c. 76),
is a statute of general application in Ghana. The said section 212 of the
Common Law Procedure Act reads:<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">“If the
tenant or his assignee do or shall, at any time before the trial in such
ejectment, pay or tender to the lessor or landlord, his executors or
administrators, or his or their attorney in that cause, or pay into the Court
where the same cause is depending, all the rent and arrears, together with the
costs, then and in such case, all further proceedings on the said ejectment
shall cease and be discontinued; and if such lessee, his executors,
administrators, or assigns, shall, upon such proceedings as aforesaid, be
relieved in equity, he and they shall have, hold, and enjoy the demised lands,
according to the lease thereof made, without any new lease.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>I intend
first, to consider the law governing forfeiture for non-payment of rent under
the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), before I turn to the effect that section 212 of
the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, has on that law, if any.<o:p></o:p>Under the
Rent Act, 1963, the landlord’s right to commence proceedings for recovery of
possession or ejectment for non-payment of rent accrues to him where any rent
lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or tendered within one month
after the date on which it became lawfully due. Once this cause of action has
accrued to the landlord and he has commenced proceedings for recovery of
possession or ejectment, the subsequent payment or tendering to the lessor or
landlord of the arrears of rent claimed by his writ does not abate the cause of
action. Indeed, any payment of rent made after the commencement of action for
recovery of possession or ejectment for non-payment of rent, must be construed
as an admission that the plaintiff’s action was well-founded and that he is
entitled to judgment.<o:p></o:p>The
harshness of the law is, however, mitigated by the provision in section 17 (3)
that:<o:p></o:p>