DANKWA vs. ANOKWA [1989]DLHC567

Date	1989-07-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC567

AMPIAH J.

ALFRED KYE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E. D. KOM FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1989]DLHC567
																																						<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" >DANKWA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANOKWA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 63<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 JULY 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">

ALFRED KYE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>By his
writ of summons, the plaintiff seeks an order for the ejectment of the
defendant and the recovery of possession of a storeroom in house No. D 800/4,
Granville Avenue, Okaishie, Accra which the defendant occupies now as a tenant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That the
defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff in that house is not really in dispute.
The plaintiff is the customary successor of the defendant’s original landlord.
The defendant had been in possession of this house as a tenant for over
thirteen years. The plaintiff’s capacity as the incumbent landlord of the house
is also not in dispute. The main ground for requiring possession of this
storeroom is that the plaintiff requires the storeroom for the occupation by
himself and the son and niece of the deceased original landlord for their
business.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant cannot claim an interminable interest in the property. As a tenant
she remains a tenant and the landlord has a right to recover possession of the
premises depending upon the circumstances. There is no written agreement
covering the tenancy and from the nature of the dealings between the parties, I
am satisfied that the tenancy is a monthly one. In the absence of any terms of
the tenancy one can only look at the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) and the common
law for guidance. Thus, the plaintiff’s right to recover the storeroom can only
be exercised within Act 220 or the common law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the
storeroom is admitted to be a non-dwelling house, the plaintiff’s right to
eject and recover can only be exercised in these circumstances under section 17
(1) (h) of Act 220. On this, counsel seem to agree. Section 17 (1) (h)
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">“17. (1)
Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 25 and of section 28, no
order against a tenant for the recovery of the possession of, or for the
ejectment from, any premises shall be made or given by the appropriate Rent
Magistrate, or any other Judge of a court of competent jurisdiction in
accordance with the provisions of any other enactment for the time being in
force, except in any of the following circumstances:—. . .<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;(h) Where the lease had expired and the
premises are reasonably required by the landlord to be used by him for his own
business purposes, such premises being constructed to be used as such, if the
landlord had given not less than six months’ written notice to the tenant of
his intention to apply for an order for the recovery of the possession of, or
the ejectment from, the premises;”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
issue therefore in this case is whether or not the requisite six month’s notice
has been given to the tenant, namely the defendant. Before tackling the main
issue, however, it is necessary to resolve one or two preliminary issues raised
by counsel. It has been contended that there was no lease. I am not very sure
what counsel means. “Lease” is defined under Act 220, s 36 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">“ ‘lease’
includes every agreement for the letting of any premises, whether oral or
otherwise, and whether the term thereof grant the right of exclusive occupation
to the tenant or include the use of any premises in common with the landlord or
any other person or with the landlord and any other person;”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>