MENSAH vs. ADDISON [1980]DLHC1607

Date	1980-06-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1607

ANSAH-TWUM J.

DAWSON FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HUGHES FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1607
																																						<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" >MENSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ADDISON<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 784<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:
26
MARCH 1981<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">

DAWSON FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

HUGHES FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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">

ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-respondent (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) sued the
defendant-appellant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) at the District
Court Grade 1B, Sekondi, claiming:<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">“That the
defendant is a tenant on the plaintiff’s premises and [that] he is in a habit
of causing ‘nuisance.’ She claims further that the defendant has refused to
cook in the kitchen and has been cooking on the verandah, and thereby keeping the
premises untidy. The plaintiff claims that the defendant owns a house at
Effiakuma into which he could move. She therefore seeks an order for ejectment
against the defendant. She wants the defendant ejected so as to avoid likely
trouble in the future.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff complained in her evidence-in-chief that the defendant’s wife had
been frying garri and drying cassava upstairs. This made her write letters,
exhibits A and B to the defendant. In these letters, she complained against
cooking by the defendant’s wife on the verandah instead of in the kitchen. She
also complained against the attitude of the defendant’s wife against her as not
being conducive. She further complained against frying garri and drying cassava
in the premises by the defendant’s wife who did thereby keep the house untidy.
The plaintiff also referred to exhibit C which is the defendant’s reply to her
two letters: exhibits A and B. She states that she now finds it difficult to
keep the defendant in her house as a tenant and therefore prayed for ejectment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant does not appear to have denied the nuisance complained of by the
plaintiff in his reply contained in exhibit C. He rather complained at length
about an alleged poor state of disrepair of the premises he was occupying and
the need for renovation. The defendant did not deny cooking on the verandah,
neither did he deny that his wife has been drying cassava in the house, or that
his wife’s attitude towards the plaintiff was not conducive to good
relationship between landlord and tenant. The defendant rather stated in no
uncertain terms that his wife would continue to cook on the verandah until, as he
put it, the kitchen was put in good order. The defendant stated further that he
knows the plaintiff was bent on ejecting him from the house but warned that the
plaintiff was not going to find it easy.<o:p></o:p>I think
this provoked the present action which is in effect an action for ejectment
based on nuisance committed in the premises by the defendant’s wife. It is
significant to note that the plaintiff (who was not represented at the trial)
was extensively cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant. The
plaintiff was, however, not challenged on her complaint that the defendant’s
wife has been frying garri and drying cassava in the premises and cooking on
the verandah. The plaintiff was again not challenged on her complaint against
the conduct of the defendant’s wife towards her. The plaintiff stated under
cross-examination by learned counsel that she does not like the attitude of the
defendant’s wife towards her. She once complained about the manner in which the
defendant’s wife and daughter greeted her, and as a result, the defendant, his wife,
and their daughter no longer greeted her. The plaintiff stated further, “they
have no regard for my house. They send firewood to their place.” The defendant
did not deny these acts and conduct of his wife which the plaintiff considered
as a nuisance. The defendant only stated that his wife stopped frying garri in
the premises before the action was instituted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced on both sides, came to the
conclusion that the premises were in a bad state of disrepair and that the
defendant should vacate within twelve months from the date of judgment to
enable the plaintiff to renovate the premises after which the defendant would
be entitled to return into occupation. He therefore entered judgment for the
plaintiff. It is against this judgment that the defendant has appealed.<o:p></o:p>