WINFRED NII BOYE TAGOE & 2 OTHERS vs. INTERLIFE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER [2009]DLCA6777

Date	2009-06-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/208/08
Citation No.	[2009]DLCA6777

ASARE KORANG J.A. [PRESIDING]

ACQUAYE J.A

ADUAMA OSEI J.A.

MR. S K OSEI-NYAME FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. V K M ABABIO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS

[2009]DLCA6777
																																						<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" >WINFRED NII
BOYE TAGOE &amp; 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTERLIFE
COMPANY LIMITED &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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. H1/208/08&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: 18TH JUNE, 2009<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">MR. V K M ABABIO FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

ASARE KORANG J.A. [PRESIDING], ACQUAYE
J.A, ADUAMA OSEI 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">

</div>ADUAMA
OSEI J.A. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court, Accra, dated the 2nd of
June, 2005, in which the High Court entered judgment in favour of the
Plaintiffs/Respondents for reliefs which included an order for repossession of
premises leased to the Defendants/Appellants by the Plaintiffs/Respondents,
arrears of rent in respect of the said property, general damages for breach of
a term in the lease and general damages for suppression of the lease agreement.
<o:p></o:p>The
Writ of Summons that commenced the action was issued on the 3rd of April, 2003,
and in the Statement of Claim that accompanied the Writ, the
Plaintiffs/Respondents described themselves as lessors and beneficial owners of
property at Peregrino Aryee Street, Abossey Okai in Accra, which was the
subject matter of a lease executed on the 26th of September, 1992 between them
and the Defendants/Appellants. <o:p></o:p>It
was alleged in the Statement of Claim that the lease was subject to rent
payable in advance at the rate of ¢200,000.00 per annum, which rent was to be
reviewed at the end of every five years, so however that any increase sought to
be effected was not to be more than 70% of the existing ground rent. It was
also alleged that the lease placed the Defendants/Appellants under an
obligation to construct a two-storey building on the demised premises which was
to consist of a ground floor and a first floor with a concrete roof. There were
to be stores on the ground floor and the Defendants/Appellants were to allocate
one of the stores to the Plaintiffs/Respondents with an exclusive right to use
the same during the subsistence of the lease. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiffs/Respondents alleged further in the Statement of Claim that in spite
of the provision in the lease as to rent, the Defendants/Appellants had, apart
from a goodwill of ¢3,300,000.00, defaulted in rent payment for 11 years and
were in arrears of ¢2,900,000.00 as at the date of the Writ. Other allegations
made against the Defendants/Appellants in the Statement of Claim were that they
had failed to construct the two-storey building as required under the lease and
that they had only allocated to the Plaintiffs/Respondents "one little or
half store" instead of one store as contained in the lease. The
Plaintiffs/Respondents alleged that it cost them ¢2,500,000.00 to bring the
store room to the state of completion contemplated in the lease. Again, it was
alleged that the Defendants/Appellants deliberately "suppressed the lease
agreement" from the Plaintiffs/Respondents and thereby deprived the
Plaintiffs/Respondents of an opportunity to develop the first and second floors
of the premises into a modern office or store complex for the benefit of their
family. <o:p></o:p>In
their Statement of Defence, the Defendants/Appellants admitted that they were
lessees of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and that the lease was subject to rent
payment in the sum and in the manner alleged by the Plaintiffs/Respondents.
They also admitted that by the terms of the lease, they were under an
obligation to construct a two-storey building on the premises as alleged and to
allocate one store on the ground floor to the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Also
while admitting that they had not paid rent for 10 years, the
Defendants/Appellants denied that they had contravened clauses in the lease
relating to rent. <o:p></o:p>Regarding
their alleged failure to construct a two-storey building at the premises, the
Defendants/Appellants stated that they had started mobilising materials at the
site for the work, but that their efforts had been frustrated by the
Plaintiffs/Respondents who embroiled them in a protracted litigation which
deprived them of enjoyment of the lease between 1993 and 1996. They alleged
that by the time the litigation ended, the prices of building materials had so
escalated that it was not possible for them to construct the building in the
terms agreed. The Defendants/Appellants stated further that in spite of the
problems created for them by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, they were able to
mobilise some building materials at the site but that they were frustrated by
the Plaintiffs/Respondents, who removed the said materials without their
consent or knowledge. The Defedants/Appellants contended that having by the litigation
and other conduct frustrated them in</main>