TACKIE vs. BANNERMAN [1987]DLHC1213

Date	1987-04-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1213

EDWARD WIREDU J.

JIMMY ALARAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

A. K. BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1987]DLHC1213
																																						<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" >TACKIE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BANNERMAN<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 44<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:
4 APRIL 1978<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">

JIMMY ALARAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

A. K. BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from the decision of his worship Mr. S. A. Afful, as he then was,
sitting as a rent magistrate in an Accra District Court on a case stated to him
by a Mr. Yaw Buadu, a rent officer, on the application of the respondent (who
shall hereafter be referred to as the landlord). In that decision the learned
magistrate reversed the decision of the rent officer dismissing the landlord’s
claims for the recovery of possession of premises occupied by the appellant
(who shall also hereafter be referred to as the tenant) under section 17 (1)
(g) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), and granted the complainant landlord the
relief sought in his claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The event
which seemed to have provoked the present controversy between the parties may
be briefly stated as follows. Some time in the middle of 1970 the landlord let
out the premises in question to the tenant at a monthly rent of ¢70, rent
payable quarterly in advance. According to the landlord his main aim had been
to provide accommodation for his children who were studying abroad and he
therefore never entered into any written agreement with any tenant he took on.
His evidence shows that when the tenant came to see him he made this clear to
him and it was with this understanding that the premises were let out and
accepted by him. Of course this is denied by the tenant. The evidence shows
that some time ago the tenant was minded to put up a structure in front of the
house to enable his wife to sell some provisions but this raised an objection
from the landlord on the ground that to permit the construction of the
structure would cause deterioration to the place and would inconvenience his
children when time came for them to take up occupation. The landlord’s
testimony shows that prior to the commencement of his action against the tenant
there had been series of correspondence between him and one of his daughters, a
Mrs. Phillips who had then qualified as dentist in London. In those letters
Mrs. Phillips expressed her intention to come home with her husband to settle
and work and requested her father (the landlord) to find her a suitable
accommodation. Two of these letters were tendered in evidence to support the
contention of the landlord.<o:p></o:p>

According
to the landlord he gave three months’ written notice to quit to the tenant. In
the notice (exhibit 2) it is stated clearly that the landlord had about a year
prior to exhibit 2 informed the tenant of his intention of seeking the recovery
of possession of the premises occupied by him. It was after the expiration of
the three months’ notice to quit that the complainant landlord applied on 1
September 1975 under regulation 13 (1) of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I.
369), on form 7, para. 4 as follows:<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">“Complaint,
claims etc. (Attach affidavit if complaint involves an absconded tenant).
Complaint is a tenant in the above premises. He occupies the ground floor flat.
I require the flat for my daughter and her family (husband and child) who are
now in England and who are coming home. My daughter is a dental surgeon and
requires a whole flat with a garage for herself and her family. I gave him
notice to vacate the flat on 30 June 1975. My daughter has written to me asking
me to arrange the accommodation for her and she intends to come to Ghana as
soon as her application to Government is approved.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing the parties the rent officer dismissed the landlord’s request for
recovery of possession. Obviously aggrieved by this decision the landlord moved
the rent magistrate under regulation 14 of the Rent Regulations of 1964.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
matter came before his worship Mr. S. A. Afful, as he then was, who after
hearing submissions by counsel for the parties reversed the decision of the
rent officer and upheld the landlord’s claim for recovery of possession as
follows:<o:p></o:p>