DAHABIEH vs. S A TARQUI & BROTHERS [2002]DLSC1186

Date	2002-05-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC1186

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ADZOE JSC

AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2002]DLSC1186
																																						<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">DAHABIEH<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">S A TARQUI &amp; BROTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 171<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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AYIKOI
OTOO 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">

STANLEY
AMARTEIFIO FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <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">

BAMFORD-ADDO,
AMPIAH, KPEGAH, ADJABENG AND ADZOE JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Adzoe JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered
the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of
Appeal dated 29 June 2000. It was a decision which reversed the trial High
Court’s judgment in favour of the plaintiff-respondent-appellant(hereinafter
referred to as the appellant). The defendants-appellants-respondents will
hereinafter be referred to as the respondents simpliciter.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant filed and argued four grounds of appeal—two original grounds plus two
additional grounds. They are that:<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">“(1)
The judgment is wrong in law. <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">(2)
The judgment is against the weight of evidence. <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">(3)
The learned justices erred in granting the order of recovery of possession in
the absence of evidence that the landlord had served the requisite statutory
notice on the tenant which notice is a condition precedent to taking any action
based on the said breach. <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">(4)
In view of the substantial works on the premises in the nature of renovations,
the learned justices ought to have suspended the order for recovery of
possession in the interest of justice.”<o:p></o:p>Grounds
(1) and (3) above deserve some comment. Rule 6 (4) of the Supreme Court Rules,
1996 (CI 16) requires that “. . . where a ground of appeal is one of law the
appellant shall indicate the stage of the proceedings at which it was first
raised.” Ground (3) is expressed as a ground of law and the appellant ought to
have indicated whether he had raised it before now, or whether he is now
raising it for the first time. The significance of this requirement will be
seen later in this judgment.<o:p></o:p>Similarly,
when the appellant alleged in ground (1) that the judgment is wrong in law, it
seems that he is in effect saying that there is an error of law in the
judgment; we believe that was what he intended to say. Indeed, that ground of
appeal appears to have been directed at the Court of Appeal’s holding that the
appellant was est</main>