ISAAC BULLEY AND CONSOLIDATED DISCOUNT HOUSE [2000]DLCHRAJ5802

Date	2000-09-19
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/REV.24/99/1840
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5802

C. A. OPOKU

[2000]DLCHRAJ5802
																																						<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:#00B050">ISAAC BULLEY<o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<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:#00B050">CONSOLIDATED DISCOUNT HOUSE<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>(CHRAJ)<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">

Our
Ref: CHRAJ/REV.24/99/1840&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;19/09/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COMMISSIONER:<o:p></o:p>C. A. OPOKU DEP. CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER FOR:
COMMISSIONER<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:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">DECISION
ON STAY OF EXECUTION ORDER<o:p></o:p>

</div>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>The
Commission's original decision in favour of the Complainant dated 14th July,
1999 was overturned in favour of the respondent by the Commission's review
decision rendered on 16th May, 2000.<o:p></o:p>By
the complainant's correspondence dated 21st June, 2000, he resisted the
respondent's attempt to re-enter the flat in dispute on the same day. In the
same correspondence the complainant registered his objection to the procedure
adopted in the Review Decision on the ground that he should have been notified
to express his observations on the review. In his view a Writ of Possession
ought to have been taken out in a Court of law before any re-entry.<o:p></o:p>In
deference to the objection so raised, the Commission by its letter of 26th
June, 2000 directed the respondent to stay execution while the Complainant was
afforded the opportunity by the Commission's letter dated 26th June, 2000 to
respond to the said application for reveiw within two weeks.<o:p></o:p>As at today (24th August, 2000) the
complainant has neglected to so act. This neglect, in the view of the
Commission, is sufficient evidence of want of defence. Meanwhile the respondent
by its letter dated July 31, 2000 was praying the Commission to take steps to
enable it recover possession of the premises since it is urgently needed to
house one of its key staff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DECISION<o:p></o:p>In
the light of the foregoing, the Commission's stay of execution order of 26th
June, 2000 is hereby vacated.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent is accordingly advised to take steps to recover possession of the
premises in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>