MRS. RAYMOND CHINTOH vs. LA FAROGOULE LIMITED [2010]DLCA6534

Date	2010-10-21
Suit No.	HI/99/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6534

G M QUAYE JA [PRESIDING]

V D OFOE JA

IRENE C DANQUAH JA

MOHAMED SAHNOON FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MRS ELIZABETH OFOSU AGYARE FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA6534
																																						<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" >MRS. RAYMOND
CHINTOH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LA FAROGOULE
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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: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">HI/99/2010&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 21ST
OCTOBER 2010<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">MRS ELIZABETH OFOSU AGYARE
FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT <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">G M QUAYE JA [PRESIDING] V
D OFOE JA AND IRENE C DANQUAH JA <o:p></o:p>

</div>IRENE
C DANQUAH JA<o:p></o:p>This
is a combined appeal emanating from an interlocutory decision of the High
Court, Accra dated 24th April, 2009 and the substantive judgment dated 30th
April, 2009. In the interlocutory decision, the court refused an application
for joinder and an amendment of the writ of summons of the plaintiff
(appellant). In the final judgment, the court dismissed the entire claims of
the plaintiff and awarded cost of GH¢1,000.00 against her. For a better
appreciation of this appeal, it is pertinent to give a brief fact of the case. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, per her lawful attorney, caused a writ of summons to be issued
claiming against the defendant company the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>"1.
An order for ejectment and recovery of possession of H/No. 43 Ringway Estate,
Accra. <o:p></o:p>2.
Payment of arrears of rent plus interest. <o:p></o:p>3.
Mesne profit. <o:p></o:p>4.
Damages for breach of covenant." <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff pleaded in her statement of claim that on 1st September, 2003, she
entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant acting through its managing
director, Alain Mihailoff, in respect of her house No. 43. Ringway Estates,
Accra, for a term of five years to end on 31st August, 2008. The rent was
payable yearly in advance at US$1, 050 per month. At the time of instituting
the action, the defendant was owing arrears of payment of rent for July, 2007.
The plaintiff averred that the parties covenanted in the said agreement that
the defendant would use the premises for residential and business purposes.
Pursuant to that covenant, the defendant's managing director moved into the
premises and occupied the top floor as his residence while the defendant
operated a French restaurant at the ground floor. <o:p></o:p>The
defendant, in breach of the tenancy agreement, had converted the whole premises
to a local restaurant. The managing director who executed the agreement on
behalf of the defendant had vacated the premises and the management of the
restaurant has changed hands, in breach of the covenant not to part possession
of the premises without her consent in writing. She alleged further that,
contrary to the tenancy agreement, the defendant had carried out alterations
and additions to the property by constructing toilets on the side of the
building, built additional kitchen and a store room on the drain and created a
sitting area in the garden thereby destroying completely the vegetation on the
land. <o:p></o:p>She
contended that the defendant had failed to remedy the breaches although it was
given notice to remedy same. The defendant had also failed to vacate the
premises as demanded by her. Hence, the writ. <o:p></o:p>In
the statement of defence, the defendant admitted the contents of the tenancy
agreement but averred that there had not been any breaches of any of the terms
of the agreement. The defendant, further, averred that it was the managing
director of the company who had been changed. <o:p></o:p>The
defendant stated that the additions made on the plaintiff's building were not
fixed additions but cosmetic which could be removed at any time without causing
any damage to the existing structure. The defendant stated further that the
additions made on the plaintiff's building had not only improved the condition
of the buil</main>