CHARLES LAWRENCE QUIST vs. AHMED DANAWI [2010]DLHC4178

Date	2010-06-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO.L220/94
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4178

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

HAMIDA IDDRISU FOR YONI KULENDI FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2010]DLHC4178
																																						<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" >CHARLES LAWRENCE QUIST<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AHMED DANAWI<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL DIVISION ONE), 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">

SUIT NO.L220/94&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: 3RD JUNE, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES
AHENKORAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF<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">

HAMIDA
IDDRISU FOR YONI KULENDI FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<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<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
case has a chequered history.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff issued the instant writ sealed in the registry of the court on the
20th day of&nbsp; April, 1994 endorsed with
the relief set out below:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“………….recovery of possession of or ejectment
from all that the piece or parcel of land situate lying and being at OSU Re,
Accra, 730 feet more or less south of Danquah Circle, bounded on the North by
the 15th Lane (a public road), measuring 80 feet more or less, on the south by
the property of a person or persons unknown measuring 80 feet more or less, on
the East by the pro-perty of R. Jojo measuring 140 feet more or less and on the
West by the property of E.C. Quist-Therson measuring 140 feet more or less the
Plaintiff demised to the defendant and his brother Abdu Latif Danawi, now
deceased, by an Indenture of a lease dated 17th January, 1977 registered at the
Land Registry as Instrument No.2032/77 for a term of Fifty years commencing
from the 1st day of February, 1977upon the terms and conditions therein
contained by reason of the fact that the said lease or demise has become
forfeited by the denial or disclaim of Plaintiff’s title to the said property.”<o:p></o:p>At
the close of the pleadings the Issues set out in the Summons for Directions
filed on 31/5/94 and agreed upon and adopted by the court for determination
were:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the defendant and his late brother
have committed a breach of their fundamental obligation as tenants to respect
their landlord’s title in respect of the property leased by them from the
Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the second letter from the lawyer
for the defendant and his late brother seeking to recant the contents of the
earlier letter of that lawyer has any legal significance on the Plaintiff’s
right to forfeit the lease.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the equity grants relief to a
tenant against forfeitur of his lease for denying his landlord’s title.<o:p></o:p>The
lawyer for the defendant then filed 3 Additional Issues on 16/6/94 for
consideration of the court.&nbsp; These were:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the defendants in fact
instructed their lawyer to write the alleged offensive letter.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the defendants’ lawyer
orally and by writing informed the Plaintiff’s lawyer that the alleged
offensive letter was written in error and without the approval and consent of
the defendants.<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether the defendants should be
visited with the sins of their lawyer when he acted contrary to their instruct-
tions.<o:p></o:p>It
is on record that the case suffered a number of adjournments till hearing
commenced before Nana Gyamera Tawiah J (now deceased).&nbsp; Nana Gyamera Tawiah J concluded the trial and
was to deliver his judgment in the matter when the inevitable happened.&nbsp; He passed away into eternity.&nbsp;&nbsp; Subsequently however, by the hand of Her
Ladyship, the Chief Justice the case was transferred to this court to be dealt
with according to law.&nbsp;&nbsp; In my considered
opinion, once the case was concluded and both Counsel filed written addresses
technically speaking, there is no legal impediment barring me from delivering
the judgment based on the evidence on record and the pleadings filed in this
case.<o:p></o:p>It
is material to put it on record that the trial of the case begun with the evidence
of the original Plaintiff, Charles Lawrence Quist offered on 30/11/2000.&nbsp; He was then subjected to cross-examination by
Mr Norvor, learned Counsel for the defendant.&nbsp;
That ended the case for the Plaintiff.&nbsp;
The court then adjourned the matter to 24/01/2001 for the defendant to
open his defence.&nbsp; However, on
record,&nbsp; the defendant on 1/9/2002
through his lawyer waived his right of offering viva voca evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp; He decided rather to tender through the Bar,
some documents he intended to rely on to support his case.&nbsp; Accordingly, Nana Gyamera-Tawiah, J made this
order:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“Learned Counsel for defendant is to file the
relevant documents in lieu of evidence for the defendant.&nbsp; Counsel for the parties are to file&nbsp; their respective addresses on or before 8/11/02.&nbsp; There after parties shall be notified by date
for judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;It needs emphasizing that prior to the court
making that order referred to supra, learned Counsel for the defendant, Mr
Norvor had made available to Mr Ahenkorah, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff
those documents. It is on record that Mr Ahenkorah having examined them and was
satisfied that they were relevant to the issues for the determination did not
object to those documents being tendered by the defendant at the bar.&nbsp; As a result Counse</main>