ANSAH vs. GHARTEY [1983]DLHC2096

Date	1983-02-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2096

TWUMASI J.

RICHARD GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MISS SUTHERLAND FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1983]DLHC2096
																																						<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" >ANSAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHARTEY <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 1189<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:
28 FEBRUARY
1983<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">

RICHARD GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

MISS SUTHERLAND FOR THE DEFENDANT<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>Some time
in January 1962, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was
transferred from Takoradi to Tema as an employee of the Railways and Ports
Corporation. He was at the time a tenant in house No. 202, Adiembra, premises
of the State Housing Corporation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He put
his nephew by name Kwesi Mills in charge of the said house. While at Tema
information reached him that the said Kwesi Mills had betrayed his
responsibility by entrusting the control of the house to the appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the defendant). Being perturbed by this
indiscretion on the part of his nephew, the plaintiff rushed to Takoradi to
verify the information. The information turned out to be true as the plaintiff
met the defendant in occupation of the house. The latter admitted that Kwesi
Mills entrusted the house to him. The defendant begged the plaintiff to allow
him to occupy the premises as he had no alternative accommodation. The
plaintiff agreed on the understanding or condition that the defendant would not
effect a change in the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the State
Housing Corporation by causing the plaintiff’s name to be cancelled and
replaced by the name of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
clear from the evidence that rents were being paid regularly to the State
Housing Corporation in the name of the plaintiff by the defendant. The evidence
adduced by the plaintiff was that whenever he travelled from Tema to Adiembra
on a visit he stayed with the defendant in the said house. When the plaintiff
was pensioned he gave notice to the defendant to quit the premises but the
latter gave various excuses that he had nowhere else to move to. To his utter
shock the plaintiff learnt that the defendant had made efforts to get his name
substituted for that of the plaintiff as the tenant of the premises. This
precipitated the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Paragraph
6 of the indorsement of the writ 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">“Wherefore
the plaintiff claims from the defendant to show cause why the defendant has
taken the plaintiff’s house No. 202 allocated to him by force against the
plaintiff’s will and therefore the plaintiff seeks an order of the honourable
court for possession of his house from the defendant for the accommodation by
the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned trial magistrate found that the plaintiff was the person recognised by
the State Housing Corporation as tenant of the corporation occupying the
premises. That being the case the position of the defendant could be no
superior to that of a sub-tenant. Vis-a-vis the defendant, the plaintiff had
capacity to take any legal steps to enforce any tenancy agreement between him
and the defendant. A tenant can always sublet his premises to a sub-tenant. The
only limitations on his power to sublet are the terms of the tenancy agreement
between himself and his landlord. Counsel’s submission that the plaintiff had
no capacity to sue therefore fails.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The next
ground of appeal raises the question of whether the tenancy agreement between
the plaintiff and the defendant fell within the ambit of the Rent Act, 1963
(Act 220), s. 17 (1) which lays down conditions for the recovery of possession
of premises subject to a tenancy agreement. With regard to the amplitude of Act
220 aforesaid I entirely share the views of Roger Korsah J. in Safo v. Badu
[1977] 2 G.L.R. 65 at p. 67 that:<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">“The</main>