JOHN LAWRENCE CHEMISTS LTD vs. OBENG-ANSONG [1996]DLCA571

Date	1996-04-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1996]DLCA571

LAMPTEY JA

FORSTER JA

SAPONG JA

DAN AFARI-YEBOAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1996]DLCA571
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">JOHN LAWRENCE CHEMISTS LTD<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">OBENG-ANSONG<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 146<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: 25 APRIL
1996<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DAN AFARI-YEBOAH FOR THE 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">

W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

LAMPTEY, FORSTER AND SAPONG
JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY JA<o:p></o:p>The respondent, Richard Obeng-Ansong, is the landlord of a
premises in Accra which he rented to the appellant-company, John Lawrence
Chemists Ltd, sometime in 1972. On the expiration of the tenancy the respondent
served the appellant with notice to give up vacant possession of the premises.
This was after negotiations for a renewal of the tenancy broke down. The
appellant duly completed Form 14 of the Rent Regulations, 1964 (LI 369) and
filed it with the rent officer in Accra on 19 January 1988. Ten days later, ie
on 29 January 1988, the respondent sued the appellant-company and claimed,
among other reliefs, an order for recovery of possession of the demised
premises pursuant to section 17(1)(h) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). The
appellant resisted the claim of the respondent. After trial on the merits
judgment was entered for the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment, the
appellant appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>The gravamen of the complaint made against the judge was that he
erred in making a finding that the respondent successfully proved that he
reasonably required the premises for his own business purposes. Learned counsel
argued that on the evidence before the court, the respondent did not have or
own a business as a going concern in respect of which he required and needed
accommodation or premises. He sought to show that the demand for vacant
possession of the demised premises was made at a time when the respondent
merely showed an intention to go into business. He submitted that the
respondent failed to satisfy a mandatory statutory requirement, namely that he
needed the premises for an existing and on-going business. Counsel for the
respondent argued the contrary. He took the court through the evidence and
sought to show that there was undisputed evidence that the respondent had and
owned various businesses in active operation before and at the date of the
demand for vacant possession of the premises. He submitted that the trial judge
was right in the conclusion he reached on this issue.<o:p></o:p>The issue raised above is a fairly simple one. Is there evidence
on the record to support the claim that the respondent needed the premises for
his own existing business purposes? The trial judge posed the question and
answered it in the affirmative. The judge made the following observation on
this issue:<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">“I find that evidence about the nature of his business, the number
of staff he employs, the suitability of the premises under consideration,
evidence mostly uncontroverted; these pieces of evidence all go to support his contention
about his need of the premises.”<o:p></o:p>There is evidence to support the finding made by the trial judge.
In his evidence in-chief, the respondent testified: “The defendant is occupying
the ground floor and the outhouse. My company Sun-Seekers Holidays Ltd is
occupying the top floor. I am sharing it with my subsidiaries . . .” The
respondent provided further evidence of the subsidiary companies as follows:<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">“Sun-Seekers Holidays Ltd is a holiday company and under it we
have Sun Lodge Hotel, Accor Devimco and then there is the Tours section
Sun-Seekers Tours which is a travel agency . . . I have registered the company
about fifteen years.”<o:p></o:p>Of the companies listed above, the respondent admitted under
cross-examination that at the date he demanded vacant possession only Accor
Devimco was not yet a company carrying on any business. There can be no doubt
that the business carried on by the respondent was expanding in scope by
including tourism and air travel booking to mention only two. There was also
appointment of additional members of staff to run the companies. In these
circumstances, it cannot be disputed that the respondent reasonably needed and
required additional accommodation and rooms for his existing and expanding
businesses.<o:p></o:p>The complaint made by counsel for the appellant was that the
demand for accommodation was made in relation to a business that the respondent
intended and planned to bring into being. I do not accept this narrow and
unduly restrictive meaning put forward by counsel for the appellant. In my
opinion, the evidence before the court clearly and plainly established that the
respondent who commenced his business from his dwelling-house and in due course
moved his business to the top floor of the premises in dispute reasonably
required the ground f</main>