MRS. BANNERMAN QUIST & 1 OR vs. MICHAEL AGBOTUI SOUSSOUDIS [2000]DLCA6535

Date	2000-07-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 134/99
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA6535

BENIN J.A. (PRESIDING)

TWUMASI J.A.

ARYEETEY J.A.

KOFI AIDOO REPRESENTING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AMPONSAH-DADZIE FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

C. HAYIBOR (WITH HIM MS.) FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS.

[2000]DLCA6535
																																						<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" >MRS.
BANNERMAN QUIST &amp; 1 OR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL
AGBOTUI SOUSSOUDIS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 134/99&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; &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: 27TH JULY 2000<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">C. HAYIBOR (WITH HIM MS.)
FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">BENIN, J.A. (PRESIDING)
TWUMASI, J.A. AND ARYEETEY, J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
J.A.: <o:p></o:p>I
would like to preface this decision with a few comments on landlord-tenant
relationship in this country. The problem of landlord-tenant relations is one
of the most frequently recurring matters that the law and society have still
not succeeded in grappling with effectively. That is the position
notwithstanding various enactment’s’ put in place, at one time or the other;
some ad hoc only, others die out like a passing wind. In the face of all these
difficulties and uncertainties in this area of law enforcement, one enactment,
namely, the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), has stood the test of time, not
withstanding the different and sometimes conflicting interpretations given to
its various provisions. The very fact that this particular enactment, together
with its regulations, namely, Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369), have survived
even the revolutionary rent laws in the evening of the 1970’s and the early
1980’s is a sure indication that their provisions have come to be accepted and
must be enforced by the courts in order to bring some sanity into the sometimes
turbulent regime of landlord-tenant relationship. <o:p></o:p>One
of the areas in this landlord-tenant relationship that very often evokes bitter
conflict is that relating to rent assessment. It seems to me it is an area
where the enactment is more honoured in its breach than observance. And quite
ironically, the tenants themselves, who the law seeks to protect, are as guilty
as the landlords when it comes to complying with the laws and regulations
governing assessment of recoverable rent. Whatever the reasons may be, there is
no justification for a court of law to fall prey to this non-observance of the
rent law and its regulations. Indeed that is one of the serious questions
raised in this appeal where the trial court appeared to have endorsed the
plaintiffs’ claim for a rent increase without applying the laid down process
for achieving that. Under relief 2 endorsed on the writ of summons, the
plaintiffs sought an increase of a hundred per cent in the rent being paid by
the defendant, their tenant. The basis for this increase, according to the
evidence of the first plaintiff, was that the defendant had failed to pay any
rent since the agreement expired in 1995. She admitted under crossexamination
that before she took this action she did not go to the rent office. However,
the trial judge upheld this claim. This is what the trial judge said: “I think
a rent of ¢6 million per annum is reasonable having regard to the type of house
in question and the location. I therefore order the defendant to pay rent of ¢6
million per annum with effect from 1/5/95 to the date he will give vacant
possession or the date the plaintiffs will recover possession.” <o:p></o:p>The
defendant appealed against this conclusion and order on two grounds, namely: <o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the honourable trial Circuit Court
Judge gravely erred when he granted respondents’ relief of ‘double rent’ when
he has no legal power to assess rent and nowhere in the statutes is the issue
of ‘double rent’ provided. <o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp</main>