BEN MIREKU, GABRIEL TETTEH MIREKU AND KWASI BADU (PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS) vs. ARCHIBALD OKPON TETTEH, VICTORIA ATSWEI TETTEH, ELIZABETH AJORKOR ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ADJEI TETTEH (DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS) [2009]DLCA7753

BEN MIREKU, GABRIEL TETTEH MIREKU AND KWASI BADU (PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS/ APPEL... [2009]DLCA7753

Date	2009-07-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/124/09
Citation No.	[2009]DLCA7753

HENRIETTA ABBAN (MRS.) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F. G. KORBIEHJ.A.

E. K. AYEBI J.A.

AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH WITH H. NUHU & S. IDDRISU FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

MR. AYIKOI OTOO FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2009]DLCA7753
																																						<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" >BEN MIREKU, GABRIEL TETTEH MIREKU AND KWASI BADU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>ARCHIBALD
OKPON TETTEH, VICTORIA ATSWEI TETTEH, ELIZABETH AJORKOR ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF ADJEI TETTEH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO.:&nbsp; H1/124/09&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:
23RD JULY, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AMA
OPOKU AMPONSAH WITH H. NUHU &amp; S. IDDRISU FOR
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
AYIKOI OTOO FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HENRIETTA
ABBAN (MRS.)&nbsp; J.A. (PRESIDING), F. G.
KORBIEHJ.A., &nbsp;E. K. AYEBI 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>AYEBI J.A.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this case are not in controversy
because they are derived from a documentary lease tendered in evidence.&nbsp; Arising from the facts, two issues call for
resolution at the trial court and in this appeal as well.&nbsp; They are whether or not the said lease is
unconscionable and whether or not the court can by its order revise or extend
the said lease.<o:p></o:p>The two issues are based on the original claim and
indeed the overriding relief the plaintiffs seek which is that the court should
make “an order varying the terms of the lease dated 2nd October
1965, between ADJEI TETTEH and KWAKU MIREKU on the grounds of unconscionability”.&nbsp; Subsequent events after the execution of the
lease also influenced this claim.&nbsp; The
appellants in this appeal are the defendants but plaintiffs have also
cross-appealed.&nbsp; For ease of reference therefore,
I will refer to the plaintiffs/respondents/ appellants simply as plaintiffs and
defendants/appellants/respondents as defendants.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs according to the evidence are the
children and nephews of the lessee, the late KWEKU MIREKU whiles the defendants
are the children, and administrators of the estate of the lessor, ADJEI TETTEH,
also deceased.&nbsp; The subject-matter of the
lease is H/No. D 774/3 situate at Kimberly Avenue, a prime commercial area of
Accra.&nbsp; On 2nd October 1965,
Kwaku Mireku took a lease of the land on which the house is situated from Adjei
Tetteh for 32 years certain.&nbsp; That meant
the lease would expire on 31st October 1997.<o:p></o:p>The lease required the lessee to build a three
storey house for his own use.&nbsp; Indeed Mr.
Mireku built the said house which is now popularly called MIREKU HOUSE said to
consist of fifty (50) shops.&nbsp; This house
is the subject-matter of this suit.&nbsp; A
further provision required Mr. Mireku to build a two-storey house behind the
three-storey one from his own resources for the lessor, which he did.&nbsp; This house according to the plaintiffs has
been remodeled into twenty (20) shops now.<o:p></o:p>In 1983 when Mr. Mireku died, the plaintiffs herein
took control of the Mireku House as beneficiaries of the estate.&nbsp; However, in 1985, fire gutted part of the
house.&nbsp; In repairing the damaged portion
of the house, the plaintiffs made an extension to it by adding a fourth (4th)
storey.&nbsp; It is the case of the plaintiffs
that before they undertook the extension, they sought the permission of some
principal members of the defendants’ family upon which the defendants promised
to renew the lease when it expired.<o:p></o:p>The bane of the lease, Exhibit A is that no
provision was made for its renewal when it expired eventually.&nbsp; That being so, in November 1996, the
defendants served the plaintiffs notice to quit on the expiration of the lease
on 31st October 1997 and thereon posted a notice on the MIREKU HOUSE
warning the general public not to take a lease from any person(s) other than
the defendants beyond the said expiry date.&nbsp;
Shaken by the defendants notice, plaintiffs immediately made a formal
request for the renewal of the lease on new terms.&nbsp; This request was effectively rejected by the
defendants.&nbsp; The plaintiffs then launch
this action against the defendants and claim as per the writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>In an amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs
particularized the grounds of unconscionability as follows:-<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
lease agreement did not contain any convenant or term against renewal and
therefore entitled the lessees to renewal.<o:p></o:p><!</main>