YAWSON vs. BRAKO [1987]DLCA813

Date	1987-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLCA813

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU JA

AMUA-SEKYI JA

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AGYEMAN-BEMPAH FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1987]DLCA813
																																						<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" >YAWSON <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BRAKO <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 370<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 1987<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">

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

AGYEMAN-BEMPAH 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">

OSEI-HWERE, WUAKU AND AMUA-SEKYI JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.A<o:p></o:p>When the
Armed Forces Revolutionary Council entered the political arena on 4 June 1979
the defendant was the sitting tenant of the two-roomed house No AH 5, Community
8, Tema, of which the plaintiff is the landlady. The plaintiff held the house
on hire purchase from the Tema Development Corporation. Following the setting
up of the so-called “One-Man One-House” Committee by the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council to enforce the provisions of the State Housing and Tema
Development Corporations (Ownership of Houses) Decree, 1979 (AFRCD 50), in
those hectic days, the defendant was compelled by the said committee to
surrender immediately one of the two rooms to the plaintiff and then to give up
vacant possession of the other room later. It was commonly agreed that the
defendant was given a quit order. The unresolved issue was the date he was to
vacate the house. The plaintiff said he was given three months to quit. The
defendant said he was permitted to stay there until he found alternative
accommodation. It seems unlikely that the defendant was allowed his own time to
quit because he conceded that he would have been thrown out of the house
altogether the same day but for his family which he used to plead for time.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
investigation conducted by the committee about the house which culminated in
the quit order was itself not without its attendant unpleasantness. The
committee caused the defendant to be “drilled.” The defendant himself explained
the cause. He said he exchanged argument which the committee thought was rude
and so he was “drilled.” The plaintiff’s sister, Rose Yawson, who was the
caretaker of the house and testified as the first plaintiff witness said,
however, that the defendant was beaten up because he was harassing her. That
was, obviously, her own belief. According to her the defendant reported her
during those revolutionary days at the Tema Naval Base (a name that was well
known to strike terror in the hearts of men) to the effect that she owned two
TDC houses. He again reported her at another barracks. These reports were
referred to the community centre (where the “One-Man One-House” Committee sat)
and she was absolved but the defendant was rather given the quit order as noted
before.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>One must,
however, not allow this alleged ill-treatment of the defendant to becloud one’s
judgment. It has been said that a revolution is not a game of chess and the
rough and tumble of its prosecution is as should be expected and it cannot be
questioned. But the legal basis for the immunity of the revolution was laid in
the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1979, Sched 1 and perpetuated
in the subsequent Provisional National Defence Council (Establishment)
Proclamation, 1981. Section 15(2) of the First Schedule of the transitional
provisions stated:<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">“(2) For
the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no executive, legislative or
judicial action taken or purported to have been taken by the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council or by any person in the name of that of [1987-88] 2 GLR
370-377Council shall be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever, and,
accordingly it shall not be lawful for any Court or other tribunal to make any
order or grant any remedy or relief in respect of any such act.” By the middle
of August 1981 (long after the AFRC had left the scene) the defendant had not
vacated the room in spite of the plaintiff’s notice to quit served on him as
far back as 24 January 1980—see exhibit D. The plaintiff struck by her writ in
which she claimed for (a) an order of ejectment from and recovery of possession
of the said house; and (b)—recovery of rent arrears of ¢595. The defendant
denied the plaintiff’s claims and counterclaimed for an order upon the
plaintiff or her agent or both to remove a lady who occupies the room he
surrendered. These facts are not disputed. After the defendant had given up the
one room the plaintiff’s husband came to live in the room for several months
and after he had left the lady, against whom the defendant seeks the order of
removal, took up occupation with her four children. The plaintiff said that
this lady, Elizabeth Yawson, is her distressed sister who she accommodated
pending the defendant’s vacating the house. The defendant denied that she is a
sister, he said she is rather called Lydia Mari. The trial circuit judge
accepted her as the plaintiff’s sister. The defendant fought to the hilt
challenging the status of the plaintiff as the owner or landlady of the house,
the previous finding of the “One-Man One-House” Committee notwithstanding. Here
again the court below found that the plaintiff is the owner or landlady. The
plaintiff’s claim for ejectment was dismissed. In keeping, however, with the
acceptance of his counterclaim the court ordered that the defendant was
entitled to the one room “which was forcibly taken from him”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>