EDITH AKUYEA ADDY & ANOR. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. AGNES ADUBEA JUMPAH & 2 ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2011]DLHC7438

EDITH AKUYEA ADDY & ANOR. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. AGNES ADUBEA JUMPAH & 2 ORS (DEFENDAN... [2011]DLHC7438

Date	2011-05-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BL.278/2007
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC7438

HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OWUSU-OFORI J.

[2011]DLHC7438
																																						<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" >EDITH AKUYEA ADDY &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGNES ADUBEA JUMPAH &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

</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">

HIS LORDSHIP ALEX
OWUSU-OFORI J.<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>The
Plaintiffs issued a writ against the defendants claiming for the following
reliefs: <o:p></o:p>I. A declaration that the terms of the lease dated 9th
September 1977 between the Plaintiff and others on one part and Vida Quarmyn
(deceased) late of Accra letting the disputed property being House No. C110/4
Kokomlemle Accra to the deceased without a clause for the renegotiation of the
rent reserved is unconscionable. <o:p></o:p>II. An Order setting aside the said lease dated 9th
September 1977 above mentioned on grounds of unconscionability. <o:p></o:p>III. An Order for the assessment for the recoverable
economic rent on the said property and subject matter of the said lease. <o:p></o:p>IV. An Order directed at the Defendants to pay to the
Plaintiff a fair and reasonable amount in lieu of arrears of rent from
September 1982 to date. <o:p></o:p>V. An Order directed at the Defendant to return the
Property to a good state of repair fair wear and tear excepted and <o:p></o:p>VI. General Damages. <o:p></o:p>This
court per my brother D.K. Ofosu-Quartey J on the 11th December 2009 entered
judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants ordering that the
lease dated 9th September 1977 between the Plaintiffs and the late Vida Quarmyn
be set aside for being unconscionable. <o:p></o:p>That
Plaintiffs be at liberty to re-enter property C110/4 Kokomlemle Accra. That the
Plaintiffs recover from the Defendants damages of GH¢50,000.00. That Defendants
put the property known as No. C110/4 Kokomlemle Accra in a good state of
repair, fair wear and tear excepted. <o:p></o:p>In
the alternative that the plaintiffs take up the needed repairs to the property
aforementioned and charge the cost to the Defendants and ordered cost of
GH¢7000.00 against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p>The
2nd and 3rd Defendants never entered appearance to the Writ and the Entry of
final Judgment was effected on the Defendants vide substituted service and it
was after this that the 1st Defendant filed a motion for stay of execution of
the judgment of the Court. <o:p></o:p>On
the 22-3-2011 the 1st Defendant filed a motion on Notice for stay of execution
pending the determination of the quantum liability of the 1st Defendant. <o:p></o:p>1st
Defendant contended that judgment was obtained against her and two others but
she was the only person who attempted to contest the case but failed. <o:p></o:p>That
she wanted to appeal against the decision of the court but the 1st Plaintiff
approach her and proposed that she prefer having the issue settled amicably out
of court in spite of the judgment obtained. <o:p></o:p>That
both lawyer in the case as well as the parties met and discussed the proposals
put forward. This she attached to her application as exhibit A. It was her
contention that they had several meetings on this proposed till the time for
appeal elapsed. <o:p></o:p>That
it was when the Plaintiff realized that the Defendants could no longer appeal
against the judgment that they decided to go into execution and succeeded in
ejecting some of the occupants from the property. <o:p></o:p>1st
Defendant contended that the act of the plaintiff amounted to deceit for
approaching her with the intent to settle the matter amicably yet reneging on
the promise to accept her proposal only to go into execution when the time for
appeal has elapsed. <o:p></o:p>It
was 1st Defendant further contention that though the plaintiffs did not ask for
the reliefs jointly and severally it was implied as they sued the three of them
together. <o:p></o:p>That
Entry of Judgment has not been served on the ot</main>