HAMID vs. OKATA AND OTHER [1990]DLCA590

Date	1990-05-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLCA590

LAMPTEY J.A

ESSIEM J.A

OFORI-BOATENG J.A.

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ZWENNES AND PETER ZWENNES FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1990]DLCA590
																																						<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" >HAMID <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OKATA AND OTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 420<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:
31 MAY 1990<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">

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

ZWENNES AND PETER ZWENNES 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">

LAMPTEY, ESSIEM AND OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 3 June
1987 the District Court Grade I, Accra dismissed an action by Muideen Hamid
(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against Kwadjo Okata and two others
(hereinafter referred to as the defendants) by which he sought an order of
ejectment and recovery of possession of three stores at Okaishie in Accra. The
plaintiff-landlord was aggrieved by that judgment and appealed to the High
Court, Accra. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of
the District Court Grade I, Accra. The defendant-tenants are dissatisfied with
the decision of the High Court, Accra and appealed to this court on a number of
grounds.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before us
learned counsel for the defendants argued only two of the grounds of appeal.
The first ground which was argued with considerable force was that the rent
officer who received and investigated the claim of the plaintiff for ejectment
and recovery of possession of the three stores had no jurisdiction in the
matter of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Learned counsel therefore
submitted that the report of the rent officer embodying his recommendation to
the rent magistrate was in law wrongly received and acted upon by the rent
magistrate. The other ground of appeal argued before us was that the judgment
was against the weight of evidence before the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I will
deal with the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants
contended that nowhere in the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) is power and right given
to a rent officer to accept complaints involving the ejectment from and
recovery of possession of premises. In the instant case the rent officer
received and investigated a case of ejectment and recovery of three stores. The
rent officer recommended to the rent magistrate that the said rent magistrate
adopt the findings and recommendations made by the rent officer. Learned
counsel submitted that the action of the rent officer was without lawful
authority and the report submitted by the rent officer to the rent magistrate
should have been rejected by the magistrate. He submitted that the rent
magistrate erred in law in receiving the report of the rent officer and
proceeding to act on it. He referred to and relied on section 5 of Act 220 in
support of his submission. He cited the cases of Saad v. City Food Supply (Ghana)
Ltd., High Court, Accra, 21 November 1966; digested in (1967) C.C. 33 and
Sfarijilani v. Basil [1973] 2 G.L.R. 260, C.A. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff argued the contrary. He submitted that the rent officer had
jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations in case of ejectment from and
recovery of premises.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issue
this court is called upon to determine is whether or not a rent officer is
clothed with jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations to a rent magistrate
in cases of ejectment from and recovery of possession of premises. Act 220, s.
5 (1) (b) provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>“5. (1)
Subject to other provisions of this Act, the appropriate Rent Officer may
discharge all, or any of the following functions: —. . .<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) Shall investigate, in such manner as he
may think fit, complaints by a landlord against a tenant in respect of arrears
of rent, and complaints by a landlord, tenant or person interested in the
premises against any other person in respect of any other matter mentioned in
this Act and shall make a determination thereon.”<o:p></o:p>The above
provision in clear and plain language empowers the appropriate rent officer to
deal with cases of arrears of rent. Over and above that function, the Act
empowers the appropriate rent officer to investigate complaints by (1) a
landlord, (2) a tenant, and (3) a person interested in the premises, which each
class of persons, may have against any other person in respect of any other
matter mentioned in the Act. The subsection provided further that the
appropriate rent officer must make a determination on the matter referred to
him. It would be seen that quite apart from the right and power given the rent
officer to hear and determine cases of arrears of rent, Act 220 enjoins a rent
officer to hear and determine any other matter mentioned in that Act.<o:p></o:p>