APPAH vs. BARNOR [1988]DLCA704

Date	1988-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLCA704

WUAKU J.S.C.

LAMPTEY JA

ESSIEM J.A.

OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE APPLICANT.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLCA704
																																						<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" >APPAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BARNOR <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 489<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
14 APRIL 1988<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">

OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE APPLICANT. <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">

WUAKU J.S.C., LAMPTEY AND ESSIEM JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Wuaku
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an application by the
plaintiff-appellant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant)
praying for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court, Accra
pending the applicant’s appeal to this court. The applicant, a tenant to the
respondent as his landlady, sued her for the following reliefs:<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) The
plaintiff ‘s claim against the defendant is for an order that the defendant
should desist from harassing the plaintiff and inducing a tenant to quit from a
store premises.<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">&nbsp;(b) An injunction restraining the defendant,
her agents or assigns and privies from further harassing the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent landlady counterclaimed:<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">“for
recovery of possession under section 17 of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) of that
store situate in the house No. D 940/3 Derby Avenue, Accra, let by the
defendant to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant requires the said
store for her own use.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant had on 18 June 1986 given notice to the plaintiff that she would be
applying to the court for recovery of possession. The counterclaim was filed on
9 January 1987.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Judgment
given in favour of the applicant by the district magistrate was reversed on an
appeal to the High Court and the respondent’s prayer granted for recovery of
possession. The applicant alleges that he has appealed to this court. Meanwhile
he had applied to the High Court for stay of execution of its judgment but this
was refused; he now applies to the court for the stay. The judgment of the
district magistrate and the High Court are annexed to the application herein,
as well as the High Court’s ruling refusing the stay. The notice of appeal is
not annexed. From the magistrate’s judgment, it was clear that whereas the
applicant was relying on a five-year lease, the respondent said it was for two
years. The magistrate ruled that there was no such lease, but only a periodic
tenancy in the nature of a monthly tenancy. This finding was not affected by
the High Court’s decision. When the monthly tenancy starts and ends is not
stated in the judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Ofosu-Asante has argued that exhibit B violates Act 220, s. 17 (1) (h). The
exhibit B to this application is the judgment of the High Court, and the
exhibit B at the trial appears to be a letter from the applicant addressed to
the respondent. Learned counsel therefore probably had in mind another exhibit,
presumably at the trial. Learned counsel submitted that the notice given by the
respondent should be specific and that the notice the respondent purported to give
was not specific and therefore void. Learned counsel referred to the case of
Hankey v. Clavering [1942] 2 K.B. 326, C.A. and submitted that the notice to be
given should be in the form of “I give you six months notice.” Learned counsel
argued that although he did not annex the notice of appeal to the application,
there is only one ground of appeal which probably is on the interpretation of
section 17 (1) (h) of the Act 220. Learned counsel concluded his argument by
saying that the appeal has every chance of success and if the application is
not allowed, it will be difficult to restore the applicant to the status quo
ante.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>