REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ACCRA; EX PARTE SAKARA [1990]DLSC665

Date	1990-07-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLSC665

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

AIKINS J.S.C.

P.A. ADJETEY S.A.G. (WITH HIM COL. (RTD.) ASANTE FOR THE APPLICANT).

NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC.

[1990]DLSC665
																																						<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>CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ACCRA; EX PARTE SAKARA<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 379<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:
9
JULY 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">

P.A. ADJETEY, S.A.G. (WITH HIM COL. (RTD.) ASANTE
FOR THE APPLICANT).<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC.<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">

FRANCOIS, WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI, OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>In
Republic v. Circuit Court, Accra; Ex parte Tay, High Court, Accra, 23 August
1989, unreported, the applicant therein invited the High Court presided over by
Ammah J. to quash a ruling of her Honour Beatrice Agyeman-Bempah, Circuit Court
judge, that she had no jurisdiction to entertain landlord and tenant suits
where the recoverable rent was under ¢1,000 per month. The application failed,
and Ammah J. confirmed the decision of the judge that the body vested with
jurisdiction was the rent and housing committee set up as part of the public
tribunal system by the Rent Control Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 138) as amended by
the Rent Control (Amendment) Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 163). When therefore the
present applicant issued his writ claiming rent at the rate of ¢400 per month
and asking for recovery of possession and the matter came before her, the
learned circuit court judge had no doubt in her mind that she could not
entertain the suit. Although it was undefended she declined to enter judgment
for the plaintiff. Instead, she called upon counsel to satisfy her as to her
powers and, having heard him, proceeded to rule that she had no jurisdiction to
grant the reliefs. The question is whether she was right.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
jurisdiction of the circuit court to entertain landlord and tenant suits will
be found in section 32 (1) (a) (ii) and (iii) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372)
as amended by the Courts (Amendment) Law, 1987 (P.N.D.C.L. 191) which reads as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“32. (1) the
jurisdiction of a Circuit Court shall consist of the following:<o:p></o:p>(a) An
original jurisdiction in civil matters . . .<o:p></o:p>(ii) In
all actions between landlord and tenant for the possession of land claimed under
lease and refused to be delivered up; <o:p></o:p>(iii) in
all causes and matters involving the ownership, possession, occupation of or title
to land.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be observed that nothing is said about the recoverable rent, so that there is
jurisdiction even if the rent per month is as low as ¢400.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
reason given by the learned judge for declining to deal with the merits of the
matter before her was that the jurisdiction of the court was ousted by section
2 (e) of P.N.D.C.L. 138. But all that the provision did was to make section 1 which
deals with the regulation of rents inapplicable to leases and tenancies where
the rent payable exceeds ¢1,000 per month. The section which has a bearing on
jurisdiction is section 6 which, while declaring that until 6 March 1987 no
application for ejectment of a tenant or for the recovery of possession from a
tenant shall be entertained in respect of any residential accommodation to
which section 1 applies, gave power to rent and housing committees to entertain
such applications if they were satisfied that the landlord genuinely required
the premises for his personal occupation, occupation by a member of his family
or a person in his whole time employment; or the accommodation was reasonably
required by the landlord for the purposes of his business. The date 6 March
1987 has long since passed, and with it has gone the exclusive jurisdiction
conferred by section 6.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
</main>