TAGOE vs. MOBIL OIL (GH) LTD [2004]DLCA1046

Date	2004-02-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA1046

ARYEETEY JA

TWENEBOA-KODUA JA

QUAYE JA

K ANSA ASARE FOR THE APPELLANT.

ERIC MENSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2004]DLCA1046
																																						<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">TAGOE<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">MOBIL OIL (GH) LTD<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 459<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: 20 February 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K
ANSA ASARE 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">

ERIC
MENSAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ARYEETEY,
TWENEBOA-KODUA AND QUAYE JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Quaye JA
delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Aryeetey JA. The facts in
this appeal per se, are not in controversy. The plaintiff-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is one of a total number of fifteen
children who survived their father Jonathan Teiko Ammah (deceased). The said
father of the appellant and his siblings, in 1959 executed a lease of the
disputed land herein in favour of the defendant-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent) for a term of twenty years certain with an
option for renewal for not more than two terms of five years each. The parties,
upon the expiry of the initial twenty years exercised and exhausted the
provisions for renewal. Accordingly, the leasehold agreement finally expired on
10 November 1989, after it had remained extant for a total of thirty years. At
the expiration of the term, the appellant, speaking for himself, as head of the
J T Ammah family and on behalf of the said family demanded vacant possession of
the land from the respondent. Upon the latter showing a strong disinclination
to surrender the land to the lessor family, the appellant instituted an action
in the circuit court for recovery of possession. The respondent successfully
resisted the action. The trial circuit court rested its decision of 8 October
1991 on two main legs, to wit: that the appellant failed to adhere to the
statutory requirement to give six months’ notice of termination of the lease
and also that he failed to disclose the purpose for which he required the land.
Subsequent to the said action, the appellant gave the required notice to the
respondent and upon the expiry thereof, commenced the action, from which this
appeal was filed, in the High Court for “recovery of immediate possession of
all that piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at Liberty Avenue,
Fanofa, North of Adabraka, and occupied by the defendants . . .” and also for
arrears of rent.<o:p></o:p>In
addition to the service by the appellant of a new six months’ notice on the
respondent to give vacant possession of the land, the appellant further
attempted to satisfy the requirements as stated by the circuit court in the
earlier action by showing the purpose for claim for recovery of possession.
This, according to the appellant, was to develop a chain of stores on the
ground floor and offices complex on the first and second floors—building plans
for the project having been completed by a firm of competent architects and
submitted to the appropriate department for approval. The intended stores and
offices were for use by the family of the appellant.<o:p></o:p>In
response to the above, the respondent’s pleaded case was that upon the expiry
of the lease on 10 November 1989 it entered into negotiations with the
appellant for rent and new terms for the property. The parties could, however,
not arrive at a definite conclusive agreement, thus, the appellant returned a
cheque drawn in his favour for rent. Upon the failure of the negotiations the
appellant wrote to the respondent requesting it to remove its petrol filling
station and petrol tanks and vacate the land. The petrol filling station of the
respondent in fact spans or stands astride two plots belonging to two families.
On the approach from Accra Central toward the Kwame Nkrumah Circle, one comes
to the disputed land owned by the appellant-family, and, adjoining that is the
other plot of land belonging to the Adjah Tetteh family. The respondent have
sunk petrol tanks on both plots of land and by this they render great service
to the general public on the Kwame Nkrumah Avenue. Accordingly, the respondent
would suffer exceeding hardship if it is compelled to demolish half of its
service building. Further to the above situation, the land in issue has been
zoned by the Department of Town and Country Planning as a commercial petrol
filling station, and the respondent contends that the present zoning of the
land is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.<o:p></o:p>