WILSON AND OTHERS vs. ASANTE [1992]DLCA4899

Date	1992-02-13
Suit No.	[1992-93] 2 G B R 904 – 909
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4899

ESSIEM JA

OFORI-BOATENG JA

ADJABENG JA

J O AMUI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

E B ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1992]DLCA4899
																																						<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" >WILSON AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ASANTE<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 904 – 909&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH
FEBRUARY 1992<o:p></o:p>

E
B ODURO 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 1.0pt 0in">

</div>ADJABENG JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Cape Coast, which
confirmed the interlocutory decision of the District Court Grade I, Cape Coast,
sitting as the rent magistrate. The ruling of the rent magistrate which the
High Court confirmed was that the rent officer, Cape Coast, had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint made to him by the plaintiff-respondent against the
defendants-appellants herein and so the rent magistrate, Cape Coast, also had
jurisdiction to deal with the matter when it was later referred to him by the
rent officer.<o:p></o:p>The
facts giving rise to the dispute are quite simple. The premises known as House
No G 101/2, Governor Rowe Road, Kotokuraba, Cape Coast were leased to CFAO (Ghana)
Limited for their trading activities. According to their Legal Adviser, one Mr
Kofi Akwaah, who gave evidence before the rent magistrate, some of the rooms at
these premises were rented to Mr K B Asante and Mr Quartson, the
plaintiff-respondent and the 5th defendant-appellant respectively herein, who
paid rent for their occupation to CFAO. CFAO also put Messrs R A Wilson, C K
Gyamfi and the late Nkrumah into some of the rooms as their commission
storekeepers. Elizabeth Hagan was also allowed by CFAO to build a shed, which
she attached to the building. These are the 1st to 4th defendants-appellants
herein. CFAO supplied them with goods to sell on commission and so they did not
pay any rent in respect of their occupation of the premises.<o:p></o:p>Around
the late 1970s when goods were scarce in this country, the company could no
longer continue with this arrangement. It was decided by the management of
CFAO, therefore that their interest in the property should be disposed of, that
is, their unexpired term of the lease which was said to be about 18 years at
the time. This term was sold or assigned to the plaintiff-respondent after
negotiations. The price paid by him to the CFAO was ¢1 million. It must be
observed that before the assignment of their interest in the property, CFAO had
sought and obtained the written consent of their landlords. This written
consent is exhibit D herein.<o:p></o:p>When
CFAO assigned their unexpired interest in the property to the respondent they
wrote to the appellants asking them to quit the premises. See exhibits A and B.
Exhibit A which was dated 19 December 1988 and addressed to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th appellants herein reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Dear Sir,<o:p></o:p>CFAO PREMISES – KOTOKURABA, CAPE COAST<o:p></o:p>We wish to inform you that we have
sold our property at Kotokuraba, a part of which you are occupying to Mr K B
Asante. Since we do not have any tenancy agreement with you, you are being
given one-month notice with effect from today to quit the premises and give
vacant possession to the new owner on 31st January 1989.<o:p></o:p>Kindly note that if you fail so to
vacate on the said date, you will be deemed a trespasser and will be treated as
such.”<o:p></o:p>The
5th appellant herein, Mr Quartson, was also written a similar letter which is
exhibit B herein. He was however given up to 1 March 1989 to quit the premises
and to give vacant possession to the respondent. This, I believe, is because he
was a tenant of CFAO. He was to pay to them the sum of ¢30,660 being rent up to
31 December 1988. He was asked to pay the rent for January and February 1989 to
the respondent to whom, as has been said earlier, CFAO had assigned its
interest.<o:p></o:p>When
the appellants failed to quit the premises and give vacant possession to the
respondent as requested, the respondent on 28 March 1989 made a complaint
against them to the Rent Officer, Cape Coast, under the Rent Act 1963 (Act
220), seeking his assistance in having the appellants ejected so that he could
renovate the premises. The appellants failed to appear even though they had
been notified. The rent officer heard the respondent in their absence and
referred the matter to the rent magistrate for him to decide whether the
respondent should be granted an order of possession of the premises.<o:p></o:p>Before
the rent magistrate, the appellants challenged the jurisdiction of both the
rent officer and the rent magistrate to hear and determine the matter. They
contended that since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between
them and the respondent, and also that there had been no tenancy agreement
between them and CFAO, neither the rent officer nor the rent magistrate had
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The rent magistrate over-ruled their
objection. They appealed to the High Court, Cape Coast. The learned High Court
judge on 24 April 1990 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the rent magistrate's
decision. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to this court with the leave of
the court.<o:p></o:p>In
this court, the appellants again urged that both the rent officer and the
magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's complaint against
them. Their counsel argued that the appellants were not tenants in the legal
sense, as they were not paying rent. Counsel relied on the definition of
"tenant" in section 36 of the Rent Act 1963 (Act 220) and invited us
therefore to set aside the decision of the High Court, Cape Coast.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the respondent was of the contrary view. He submitted that since the
appellants derived their right of occupation through the CFAO, they were
tenants. On this, counsel drew our attention to the definition of “tenant” in
section 36 of Act 220, particularly (a) and (c) of that definition. It was the
contention of the respondent's counsel, therefore,</main>