ARMAH vs. GHANA WATER AND SEWERAGE CORPORATION [1980]DLHC1560

Date	1980-06-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1560

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-LANDLORD.

I. D. DUOSE FOR THE DEFENDANT-TENANTS

[1980]DLHC1560
																																						<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" >ARMAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA WATER AND SEWERAGE CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 813<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:
5
JUNE 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">

MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-LANDLORD.<o:p></o:p>

I. D. DUOSE FOR THE DEFENDANT-TENANTS<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">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, an Accra legal practitioner, is the landlord of a block of flats
described as house No. 3 Block 9, North Odorkor Residential Area. By a tenancy
agreement dated 20 November 1978, he let these premises to the defendants, the
Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation, at an annual rent of ¢27,000 for two
years certain with an option to renew. The notice of intention to renew should
be given three months prior to the expiry of the term. The lease commenced on 1
September 1978, and the yearly rent was payable in advance at the commencement
of each term. From 1 September 1979, the defendants failed to pay the agreed
rent of ¢27,000. The plaintiff therefore took out this summons for recovery of
possession; ¢13,500 arrears of rent for six unspecified months, and mesne
profits.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By their
amended statement of defence, the defendants pleaded and relied on two
documents, namely, a circular No. 16/Vol. 3/143, dated 21 August 1979, issued
from the office of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and signed by E. K.
Minta, Secretary to the Council at the time; and circular No. SCR — 01/2 dated
19 July 1979, issued from the same office. Those circulars issued directives to
all government organisations, statutory boards and corporations to reduce rents
paid from public funds, in respect of public officers occupying private houses
by fifty per centum.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants contend that by virtue of these directives, they were enjoined to
pay the plaintiff half of the rent agreed upon between them in the agreement.
They contend further that the plaintiff’s action is misconceived because it is
contrary to the basic law of the land. They pleaded the transitional provisions
of the Constitution, 1979, and maintain that the directive, being a decision of
the A.F.R.C. cannot be challenged or questioned by any “proceedings
whatsoever.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
on both sides agreed that from the pleadings, no issue needed to be resolved on
the facts; the only issue that falls to be decided is one of question of law,
namely, whether the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council’s directive was an
executive action within the context of the transitional provisions of the
Constitution, 1979. They agreed that the matter could be disposed of by legal
argument.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I decided
that the burden in this issue was thrown on the defendants, so they had the
right to begin. Mr. Duose, arguing on behalf of the defendants, submitted that
the defendant-corporation is a quasi-government organisation completely under
the control of the government and therefore subject to the directives which are
issued by the government from time to time. He continued that the circular,
exhibit A, was issued by the government of the time, and that this circular
enjoined the defendants to slash down all rent paid from public funds in
respect of public officers occupying private houses by half. Referring to the
Rent (Amendment) Decree, 1979 (A.F.R.C.D. 5), he submitted that the Decree was
enacted to buttress the directive contained in the circulars. He argued that
the relationship between the parties should be governed by the provisions of
A.F.R.C.D. 5 which he submitted had abrogated the tenancy agreement. Counsel
also argued that by virtue of section 15 of the transitional provisions, the
plaintiff cannot challenge the defendants’ conduct in these proceedings. Mr.
Duose further contended that by virtue of section 8 (3) of A.F.R.C.D. 5 the
rent payable to the plaintiff should be ¢200 per flat or 34 pesewas per square
foot whichever is lower.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In reply,
Mr. Mensah, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the circular relied on by the
defendant has no force of law and it cannot derogate from the contract which
the defendants had concluded with a private citizen. He conceded that the
current l</main>