REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT GRADE I, KORLE GONNO; EX PARTE ABRAHAM AND OTHERS [1989]DLHC669

Date	1989-03-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC669

PIESARE AG. J.

K. T. OSEI FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLHC669
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DISTRICT COURT GRADE I, KORLE GONNO; EX PARTE ABRAHAM AND
OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 226<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:
22
MARCH 1989<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">

K. T. OSEI FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

PIESARE AG. J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF PIESARE AG. J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
certiorari application brought under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 59, r. 2, praying for an order to quash the proceedings
of the District Court Magistrate Grade I, Korle Gonno dated 17 August 1988 and
1 December 1988. On 10 March 1989 the application was dismissed with costs and
the full ruling was adjourned to today.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
record of proceedings shows that the applicants’ landlord, one Opanin Kofi
Ansong, complained to the rent officer that the premises where the applicants
lived had deteriorated seriously. That he wanted to carry out certain
renovations, but that the renovations could not be effected with the tenants in
occupation. He therefore wanted recovery of possession to enable him renovate the
premises, and that after the renovation, the tenants could come back if they so
wished. Upon receipt of this complaint, the rent officer went into the matter,
made his determination, and submitted his findings to the rent magistrate whose
decisions are now being questioned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 17
August 1988 the landlord and these applicants appeared before the rent
magistrate in question, and the defendant-applicants there told the rent
magistrate that they had “almost repaired half of the premises. We are prepared
to effect the repairs.” (The emphasis is mine.) The magistrate then proceeded
and made the following order which is now complained of.<o:p></o:p>“From the
undertakings of the defendants that they will effect the necessary repairs,
they are given up to 31 October 1989 to effect the repairs to the satisfaction
of the landlord. Alternatively they should give up possession on or before that
date for the plaintiff to effect the necessary repairs with the option of
reinstating the defendants then.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants did not quarrel with this order until 1 December 1988, i.e. after
the expiration of the deadline. On 1 December 1988 their counsel, Mr. K.T.
Osei, for the first time raised some legal points, and submitted that sections
5 and 7 of the Rent Control Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 138) were not complied with;
and that regulation 17 (1) (b) of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I.369) too was
not complied with. The magistrate overruled the points and held in particular
that section 5 of P.N.D.C.L. 138 was not applicable to “the type of premises in
question.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
sequel to the last proceedings before the magistrate was this application. In
this court, counsel for the applicants has canvassed several points under both
the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) and PNDCL 138. It was argued that the landlord did
not give the tenants six months’ notice, as required under section 17 (1) (i)
of Act 220; that regulation 18 of L.I. 369 was not complied with by the
landlord; that renovation could be effected with the tenants in occupation;
that the case was not heard on its merits; and that after the expiration of 31
October 1988 the magistrate should have taken evidence to ascertain whether the
tenants had completed the repairs or not; and that the premises were a two-room
accommodation and therefore the proper forum was the rent and housing committee
and not the rent court. The magistrate had therefore no jurisdiction to make
any order affecting such premises. The prayer therefore is that the order of 17
August 1988 and the final ejectment order of 1 December be quashed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question then is, in what circumstance would a writ of certiorari issue to
quash the decision of a public body or court? In the oft-quoted passage in the
judgment of Atkin L.J. in t</main>