B D KUKUBOR & 6 ORS. vs. GHANA WATER COMPANY LTD. [2010]DLCA6652

Date	2010-05-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/131/2007
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6652

G.M. QUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING)

C.J. HONYENUGA J.A.

IRENE DANQUAH J.A

MR. ANTHONY KWAKYE FOR DEFTS/APPELLANTS

MR. S.K. AMOAH FOR PLT./RESPONDENTS

[2010]DLCA6652
																																						<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" >B D KUKUBOR &amp; 6 ORS.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA WATER COMPANY LTD.<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/131/2007&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: 20TH MAY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

MR.
S.K. AMOAH FOR PLT./RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>G.M.
QUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING), C.J. HONYENUGA J.A., IRENE DANQUAH J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT IN APPEAL<o:p></o:p>

</div>G.M. QUAYE, J.A, <o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from the decision of the High Court, Accra, delivered on 6th
December, 2006.&nbsp; The respondents to this
appeal were the Plaintiffs in the trial Court, while the appellants were the
defendants therein. <o:p></o:p>FACTS: <o:p></o:p>The
respondents, either directly or by extension, were all former employees of the
appellant company. By virtue of the said employment the respondents were
allocated premises commonly known and described as flats L, M, and N, Kanda
Estates by the appellants.&nbsp; The husband
of the 3rd respondent was one of the workers who benefited from the allocation;
and upon the death of the said worker, his wife, the 3rd respondent continued
to occupy and live in the house that was originally allocated to the said
husband/employee.&nbsp; In this judgment therefore
the term former employees of the appellants would be used to include the 3rd
respondent constructively.&nbsp; After the
respondents had ceased to be in the employment of the appellants, the latter
sought to evict them from the premises that had been allocated to them.&nbsp; The respondents resisted the attempts made by
the appellants to dispossess the respondents of the residential premises.&nbsp; When the appellants persisted in their effort,
the respondents, on 12th May, 1992 filed a writ to commence an action and seek
protection of the law against their former employers, the appellants
herein.&nbsp; The relief sought by the
respondents was:— <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp; A declaration that the plaintiffs are tenants
of the State Housing Corporation in the flats popularly known as flats L, M, and
N, Kanda, Accra, and cannot be ejected by the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp; An order that all rents deducted from the
Salaries of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th plaintiffs and the husband of
the 3rd plaintiff by the Defendant be paid by them to the State Housing
Corporation as the rightful Landlords of the said flats. <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp; An order that the plaintiffs continue to
occupy the said flats as tenants of the State Housing Corporation. <o:p></o:p>4.
A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, their workmen, agents and
servants from forcibly ejecting the plaintiffs from the said flats. <o:p></o:p>PLEADINGS: <o:p></o:p>The
respondents acknowledged the fact that they were formerly, employees of the
appellant company and occupied apartments in flats L, M, and N, Kanda Estates,
Accra.&nbsp; In 1966 by a letter No. BC
288/SF, 1/142 which was addressed to the Ghana Housing Corporation, the
Minister of Works and Housing approved the allocation of the flats, the subject
matter of this Suit, to a number of workers including the 2nd respondent and
the husband of the 3rd respondent.&nbsp; The
majority of the workers who benefited from the said allocation were employees
of the appellants.&nbsp; The said workers were
to pay their rents directly to the Ghana State Housing Corporation and the
tenancies were to be regulated by the rules and conditions of tenancy of the
Housing Corporation.&nbsp; In view of this
directive, the 2nd respondent and also, the husband of the 3rd respondent were
issued rent cards by the Housing Corporation.&nbsp;
Quite apart from the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the rest of the
respondents, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th, while conceding the fact that they
were given possession of the flats by the appellants, nevertheless contended that
the appellants merely played the role of agents of the Housing Corporation who
were/are the real owners of the premises, and therefore did not acquire or
exercise any rights vested in themselves. <o:p></o:p>Further
to the stand taken by the respondents, they alleged that the flats which were
allocated to them in the manner aforesaid, had earlier on been allocated to
other employees of the appellants, and it was after those earlier beneficiaries
of the premises had ceased being employees of the appellant company, and had
consequently vacated those premises, that the appellant company put them, the
respondents into occupation.&nbsp; Upon
conditions of tenancy set by the Housing Corporation, albeit rents were
deducted at source on monthly basis from their salary by the appellant company.
<o:p></o:p>According
to the respondents, the rents so deducted were in turn paid by the appellants
to the Housing Corporation.&nbsp; The
respondents put the title and rights of the appellant company in issue and
challenged the capacity of the appellants to seek to evict the respondents from
the flats.&nbsp; In their statement of
defence, the appellants joined issue with the respondents upon their
pleadings.&nbsp; The appellants traced the history
of the flats, alleging that the flats were built by the State Government, and
in 1966, after the overthrow of the government of the Convention People’s
Party, the succeeding military government, the National Liberation Council,
allocated the flats to the employees of the appellant company who had to
relocate from Kumasi to Accra since the Head Office of the appellant company
had been moved from Kumasi to Accra. <o:p></o:p>The
flats were therefore not the properties of the Housing Corporation.&nbsp; The respondents were not at anytime subject
to the terms of tenancy of the Housing Corporation.&nbsp; It is the appellants’ case that the Housing
Corporation was initially responsible for the collection of rents from the
workers on behalf of the Government and paid whatever rents they collected to
t</main>