ASAMOAH vs. ZWENESS [1980]DLHC1036

Date	1980-02-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1036

SARKODEE J.

DR. ERNEST NII TACKIE OTOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1036
																																						<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" >ASAMOAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ZWENESS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 867<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:
7 FEBRUARY 1980<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">

DR. ERNEST NII TACKIE OTOO FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

ATTA ERSKINE 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the order of the Rent Magistrate, Sekondi, for the recovery
of possession of house No. 3, Ketan Estate, Sekondi, from the appellant; the
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) having given the
defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) six months’ notice
to quit, which had expired on 30 April 1979. The tenant failed to give up
possession. The ground upon which the landlord demanded vacant possessions is
contained in an affidavit which accompanied the application for a writ of summons
which is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I,
Wilhelmina Zweness of Sekondi make oath and say as follows: <o:p></o:p>(1) That
I am the deponent herein. <o:p></o:p>(2) That
I swear to this affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff whose authority I have to
do so. <o:p></o:p>(3) That
the plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the Efaina family of
Elmina on whose behalf the plaintiff acts. <o:p></o:p>(4) That
the plaintiff is desirous of remodelling the said house No. 3, Ketan Estate, of
which the defendant is a tenant and six months’ previous notice to that effect
had been given to the defendant who has refused and still refuses to quit. <o:p></o:p>(5) That
the plaintiff’s niece who is a seamstress has entered into a reputable firm to
make dresses for sale and she needs the premises to be remodelled for occupation
and start to operate. <o:p></o:p>(6) That
I swear to this affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s application for a writ
of summons to issue.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As far as
can be gathered from the affidavit, the landlord intended to remodel the
premises and then to give it to his niece for the purpose of her business as a
seamstress. No investigations were conducted either by the rent magistrate or
by a rent officer as provided by the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), and no evidence
was taken by the rent magistrate. The only evidence before the magistrate is
that contained in the affidavit. Indeed, the whole trial was conducted in a
summary manner; the tenant being asked to plead to, after reading and
explaining to him what was called a charge. Perhaps it would be useful to
reproduce the entire proceedings which are:<o:p></o:p>“Parties
present. Mr. Erskine (Snr.) for the plaintiff present. Claim: Ejectment. C.R.
&amp; E. in English: Plea liable I plead for extension of time. By court:
Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is to quit
the plaintiff’s home on or before 31 December 1979. The plaintiff is awarded
¢50 costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
tenant appealed and prayed that the judgment be set aside.<o:p></o:p>It is
clear from a careful study of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), hereinafter
referred to as the Act, and its amendments especially, those enacted by the
Armed Forces Revolutionary Council that even though it is not meant to
intimidate landlo</main>