OMAN GHANA TRUST HOLDINGS LTD. vs. ACQUAH [1984]DLCA953

Date	1984-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA953

APALOO C.J

FRANCOIS JA

ABBAN J.A.

AGYEMANG (WITH HIM DR. AKO ADJEI AND OFORI) FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1984]DLCA953
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

OMAN GHANA TRUST HOLDINGS
LTD. <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 198<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
21 DECEMBER 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

AGYEMANG
(WITH HIM DR. AKO ADJEI AND OFORI) FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

KWAME
TETTEH 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">

APALOO C.J., FRANCOIS AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>On 27
November 1984 we allowed an appeal from the judgment of the High Court which
denied the respondent’s claim for recovery of possession of house No 45,
MacCarthy Hill. We considered that the respondent was entitled to possession
and we felt the hardship and inconvenience he suffered by being kept out of
possession for five years, was so grave that we declared him entitled to
repossession of the premises on the day we pronounced judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He did
not, in fact, regain possession on that day. He did so two days later that is
on 29 November. He was apparently able to do so without the aid of the sheriff.
As at yesterday when we heard this motion, he was still in possession.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants invite us to stay execution and grant them extension of time. In the
context of this case, the extension can only mean reversing ourselves on our
order for immediate possession and throwing the respondent out of his own
premises. On any view of this matter, that will be a bold request.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
reason advanced for the application was that the applicants have appealed
against our judgment and are of the view that “the appeal to the Supreme Court
will succeed, in that the Supreme Court will not allow reversal of findings of
fact by the trial court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We have
looked at the grounds of appeal. While not claiming infallibility for our
judgment, the grounds of appeal strike us as insubstantial. We are unconvinced
that the applicants have a serious question for submission to the highest
appellate court of the land and on that ground, we would feel disposed to
reject the application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Although
the grounds filed show that the applicants proposed to contest the judgment of
the court on purely factual grounds, some argument was addressed to us which
would make it appear that some arguable points of law were going to be raised.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
urged, for instance, that as the applicants were statutory tenants, the
respondent incurred an obligation to give them notice to quit before seeking a
possession order against them. It was also said he did not comply with
regulation 18 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369). That regulation obliged
the respondent to notify the rent officer of his intention to apply for
possession. It was said as these statutory regulations were not obeyed, the
order granting possession to the respondent was incompetent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>