MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SADISCO HOTEL vs. MARMON [1985]DLSC942

Date	1985-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLSC942

APALOO C.J.

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN J.A.

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPLICANT.

BROWN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLSC942
																																						<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">

MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
SADISCO HOTEL <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 1 GLR 333<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
25 JUNE 1985<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">

KWAKU
BAAH FOR THE APPLICANT. <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., MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The dispute in this case relates to a
building described as an annexe to Sadisco Hotel. It appears that the main
building to which it is said to be an annexe belonged to a Lebanese called
Baksmaty. He rented the premises to a man called Kissi. He has since died. The
evidence shows that it was a tenancy from month to month. Kissi used the
building in running a hotel.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>About
1970-1971 Baksmaty sold the annexe to the respondent. He was then resident in
Nigeria. As he did not then require the premises for his own occupation, he
permitted Kissi to continue his tenancy of the premises. It appears it was on
the same monthly basis. After the respondent purchased Baksmaty’s interest,
Kissi was desirous of extending the hotel premises. The respondent was
agreeable to this on condition that Kissi met the cost of the extension
initially from his own pocket. It was estimated to cost ¢18,000 and it was
agreed that this sum should be set off against future rents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Sometime
in the early 1980s the respondent was minded of returning home from Nigeria. He
was in ill-health. So he gave notice to Kissi sometime in 1981 that he would be
requiring the premises on his return for his own occupation. As Kissi was a
tenant within the meaning of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), the respondent could
not recover possession of the premises without judicial assistance. He had to
base his claim on one of the many grounds laid down by section 17 of that Act.
But before the respondent could launch any suit against his tenant Kissi, the
latter died. He was said to have died in the first half of 1983. The legal
position which resulted to the tenancy on Kissi’s death did not receive the
consideration of the court below. As we are not now hearing the appeal on its
merits, it is not necessary for us to say what, in our opinion, resulted from
the tenant’s demise.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But
although Kissi had died, the hotel continued to be run. To obtain vacant
possession of the annexe, the respondent took out a writ against the apparent
occupant of the premises. He seems unsure of who he was, so he sued him as
managing director or manager of Sadisco Hotel and sought recovery of possession
and accrued rents. The respondent’s position in the court below seems to have
been that as Kissi’s tenancy was brought to an end by a valid notice to quit
before his demise, his right to the premises determined with his death. The
applicant made an issue of it and pleaded in paragraph (6) of his statement of
defence that: “The defendant denies paragraph (6) . . . and says that the right
of the management of Sadisco Hotel did not terminate with the demise of the
late Donkor Kissi.”<o:p></o:p>In view
of the position taken up by the parties, the learned judge came under a duty to
decide:<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">(a) Whether Kissi’s monthly
tenancy determined on his death; and<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">(b) If it did not, whether the
respondent satisfied the court that he reasonably required the premises for his
own occupation as a dwelling house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned judge, in a judgment which is remarkab</main>