DARKO vs. IMADI [1987]DLHC2228

Date	1987-08-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC2228

AMPIAH J.A.

K. BAAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BROWN FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1987]DLHC2228
																																						<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" >DARKO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>IMADI<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 206<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 19 AUGUST 1987<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K. BAAH
FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

BROWN FOR
THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim in this action is for recovery of possession of house No.
D733/4, Kojo Thompson Road, Tudu, Accra. The defendant does not deny that the
plaintiff is his landlord. He however contends that the plaintiff does not need
the house for his occupation. In a subsequent amendment to his defence the
defendant contended 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
plaintiff’s action is incompetent and cannot be maintained in law since the
plaintiff has not complied with the statutory requirements under the Rent Act,
1963 (Act 220), the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369) and the Rent Control Law,
1982 (P.N.D.C.L. 5).”<o:p></o:p>From the
pleadings, therefore, the following main issues arose for determination:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1).
whether or not the action is maintainable in law;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2).
whether the plaintiff has given the defendant notice to
quit;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3).
whether the plaintiff needs the house for his occupation;
and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4).
whether the defendant will suffer greater hardship if an
order for possession is made.<o:p></o:p>In his
counsel’s address however, the defendant raised an issue which he contended was
one of law which he was entitled to raise at any time. Counsel contends that
since the pleadings and evidence show that the defendant is not in occupation
of the whole house, as there are other tenants in the house, the plaintiff’s
claim for recovery of possession of the whole house from the defendant is
misconceived as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and must be dismissed
accordingly. He makes this application under Order 25, r. 4 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). Order 25, r. 4 of L.N. 140A
provides:<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">“4. The
Court or a Judge may order any pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it
discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case or in
case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or
vexatious, the Court or a Judge may order the action to be stayed or dismissed,
or judgment to be entered accordingly, as may be just.”<o:p></o:p>It is
true that in the plaintiff’s writ of summons, he claims for “. . . recovery of
possession of house No. D733/4, Kojo Thompson Road, Tudu, Accra.” In paragraph
(2) of his statement of claim however he avers, “The defendant is a tenant of
the said house and occupies the first floor of the said house.” In reply to
this</main>