YAKUBU WALA AND 9 OTHERS vs. PATRICIA KONADU& ANOTHER [2012]DLCA3098

Date	2012-01-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/29/2010
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA3098

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) J.A.

OBENG-MANU JNR. ESQ. HOLDING BRIEF FOR JAMES MARSHAL BELEIB ESQ.

FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.

AFRICANNUS OWUSU-ANSAH ESQ. FOR KOBIEH AMENFI ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS.

[2012]DLCA3098
																																						<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" >YAKUBU WALA AND 9 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PATRICIA KONADU&amp;
ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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. H1/29/2010&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; &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: 27TH
JANUARY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>OBENG-MANU JNR. ESQ.
HOLDING BRIEF FOR JAMES MARSHAL BELEIB ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<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">

AFRICANNUS
OWUSU-ANSAH ESQ. FOR KOBIEH AMENFI ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANTS.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MARIAMA
OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH J.A., IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>Most of the facts of the case leading
to this appeal are not seriously in dispute. The case of the
plaintiffs/respondents before the trial High Court was as follows: House No. ZE
184/5, Plot 7, Block 8, Akwatia Line, Allar-Bar, Kumasi was owned by their
father Opanin Kojo Agyei who had acquired the house through purchase. Opanin Kojo
Agyei died testate on the 31/10/1989. Letters of administration with will
annexed was granted to Kwaku Addai, Akosua Kruwaa and Kwasi Boadi, all of
Kumasi who was the nephew, wife and son respectively of Opanin Kojo Agyei.
Subsequently a vesting assent was executed by these administrators of the
estate of Opanin Kojo Agyeiin 1996 in respect of the afore-mentioned house in
favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and other beneficiaries who numbered ten
in all. The ten defendants/appellants herein were already each a tenant of one
of the ten rooms in contention in this case at the time Opanin Kojo Agyei
acquired the house and when he died and the house passed to the respondents and
the others. After having owned the house for about nineteen years, the plaintiffs
respondents, together with their mother and other siblings, decided to convert
the ten rooms occupied by the defendants/appellants into a cold-store; they therefore
invited the defendants/appellants to a meeting in or about 2001 and informed
them of their intention, giving them six months within which to vacate their
respective rooms since the remodeling could not be carried out whilst they were
in occupation. On the expiration of the six months, when the
defendants/appellants had not vacated their rooms, the plaintiffs/respondents
and the others caused their lawyer to write to the defendants giving them a
further six months within which to quit the premises but after more than one
whole year the appellants had still not quit in spite of the fact that they had
been allocated alternative places at the Race Course by the government. The
plaintiffs/respondents had also acquired all the necessary documentation and
permits to undertake the remodeling of the rooms. The plaintiffs/respondents
therefore initiated ten separate actions against each of the
defendants/appellants in the Circuit Court, Kumasi by filing only a writ of
summons (which was permissible under the Old Rules of Court) seeking an order
to compel them to vacate their rooms. Each defendant/appellant also entered a
separate appearance only although by the same lawyer. It would appear that it
was at this stage that all the ten suits were consolidated by the order of the
trial court. The plaintiffs/respondents therefore filed one common statement of
claim. As would be expected, the defendants/appellants also filed one common
statement of defence. As I have already hinted before, the
defendants/appellants admitted most of the averments made by the respondents. They
however averred that the reason why the defendants/appellants wanted to have
them ejected from their rooms was that they had refused to pay ¢5 million each
that the plaintiffs/respondents had demanded from them as ‘goodwill’.&nbsp; At the close of the pleadings, the issues set
down for trial were the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:48.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the defendants’ various stores were internally renovated in 2001.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:48.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the plaintiffs served notice that they required vacant possession of the
premises for purposes of remodeling into a cold store. <o:p></o:p>(iii)