GBEDEMAH vs. OFORI [1990]DLCA2243

Date	1990-03-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLCA2243

AMPIAH JA

LAMPTEY JA

AMUAH JJA

W FUGAR (WITH HIM MILLS-OWUSU) FOR THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT.

TABI AMPONSAH (WITH HIM G S AIDOO) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT

[1990]DLCA2243
																																						<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" >GBEDEMAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OFORI<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 345<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: 29 MARCH 1990<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>W FUGAR
(WITH HIM MILLS-OWUSU) FOR THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT.<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">

TABI
AMPONSAH (WITH HIM G S AIDOO) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

AMPIAH,
LAMPTEY AND AMUAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF AMPIAH JA.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in this case is the undisputed owner of house No 1, Second Dade Walk,
North Labone, Accra. This was a house which he had bought in order to live in
with his family.<o:p></o:p>It
consisted of a main block and an out-house. The house needed some repairs. The
evidence shows that some time after the purchase of the house the plaintiff
left the country and placed the house under the caretakership of one Godfried
Obeng Boateng. The defendant and his wife were said to be very good friends of
the plaintiff’s wife; the defendant’s wife was the schoolmate of the
plaintiff’s wife. The defendant who was in dire need of accommodation for
himself and his family approached Mr Boateng through the plaintiff’s wife to
plead for the renting of the house. The request was acceded to and after some
repairs on the premises, the defendant and his family moved in at a monthly
rent of ¢1,000 considering the fact that the defendant had to effect the repairs
at his own cost. A year’s rent was paid in advance. After the plaintiff had
returned to the country he went to the defendant and requested that he moved
into his (plaintiff’s) house at Nima so that he (the plaintiff) could move into
the house in which the defendant was living since he had purchased the house
specifically for his own use. The defendant refused, complaining that he had
effected repairs on the house amounting to about ¢97,000. The plaintiff further
requested that if the defendant was desirous of staying in his house then he
should advance him (the plaintiff) an amount of ¢100,000 to enable him (the
plaintiff) complete a block of flats he was putting up in order to give him
(the defendant) one. This also the defendant turned down. This misunderstanding
developed into an impasse which later found itself before the National Defence
Committee (N.D.C). It would appear that the proceedings before the N.D.C. could
not resolve the conflict. Consequently, the plaintiff brought this action
claiming from the defendant: “(a) an order for recovery of possession of house
No 1, Second Dade Walk, North Labone, Accra; and (b) mesne profit.” The
apparent grounds for the claim being, that: “(1) the oral lease for a term of
two years had expired and the plaintiff requires the premises for his personal
occupation; and (2) the defendant is refusing to pay rent.” The main issue for
determination was “whether or not the plaintiff reasonably needs the premises
for his own occupation and that of his family.”<o:p></o:p>Both
sides offered evidence. At the close of the case, the learned trial judge of
the Circuit Court, Accra on 16 June 1987 gave judgment for the plaintiff and
ordered recovery of possession of the house to the plaintiff. No mesne profits
were awarded apparently because the plaintiff had said he was not interested in
the arrears of rent. The defendant has appealed against the decision of the
circuit court.<o:p></o:p>Originally
only one ground of appeal was filed, namely “The judgment is against the weight
of the evidence.” On 6 November 1989 and 16 January 1990, the defendant filed
additional grounds of appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, the defendant was
granted leave to argue the further grounds.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the appellant had argued that the learned trial judge erred in holding that
the non-compliance with regulation 18 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (LI 369)
was not fatal to the plaintiff’s case. Counsel was however not sure as to when
compliance with the regulation should be made; whether before the issue of the
writ of summons, at the time defence was filed or during the hearing of the
case but before the close of the plaintiff’s case. Regulation 18 of LI 369
provides 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">“18.
Where a landlord requires his premises for the purposes of section
17(1)(g)(h)(i) or (k), he shall furnish to the appropriate Rent Officer a
declaration as in Form 14 of the First Schedule hereto.”<o:p></o:p>Even
though this provision requires that Form 14 “shall” be furnished to the rent
officer, there is nothing to show when exactly this provision should be satisfied.
In the case of Ranwanji Brothers v Paterson Zochonis &amp; Co Ltd
(Consolidated) [1975] 2 GLR 352, Abban J (as he then was) had the occasion to
deal with some aspect of the matter; that is in an earlier action by a landlord
the claim had been dismissed, among other reasons, for the non-compliance with
regulation 18 of LI 369. The same landlord took a subsequent action against the
same tenant, this time complying with the provision of regulation 18 of LI 369.
The judgment was given for the landlord. In dismissing the appeal at 353 as
stated in holding (4) of the headnotes, his lordship Abban J (as he then was)
observed:<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"><span</main>