MRS. MARGARET TAGOE vs. CAPTAN CINEMA CO. LTD AND NOUR CAPTAN [2012]DLCA6531

Date	2012-03-08
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/209/09
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA6531

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

DUOSE JA

OFOE JA

MR. EBOW QUARSHIE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. WILLIAM A. ADDO FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLCA6531
																																						<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.
MARGARET TAGOE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CAPTAN
CINEMA CO. LTD AND NOUR CAPTAN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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">CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/209/09&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 8TH MARCH, 2012<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">MR. WILLIAM A. ADDO FOR
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS <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">APALOO JA (PRESIDING)
DUOSE JA AND OFOE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO
JA <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant to be referred to as Plaintiff, as Administratrix and
beneficiary of the Estate of Edward Quaye (deceased) by her writ of summons
claimed against the Defendants the following reliefs; <o:p></o:p>“1. Order for ejectment from the
premises known as the “Olympia” Cinema situate and located at La in the Greater
Accra Region bounded on all sides by the Accra-La Motor road measuring two
hundred and forty-five feet (245’), Access road measuring ninety five feet
(95’), by earth drain and Adzobi Fofo’s land measuring two hundred and seventy
feet (270’) and Nii Addokwei Kofi land measuring two hundred and eighty feet
(280’) for nonpayment of rent and for breach of covenant of the lease. <o:p></o:p>2. 100,000,000.00 (One Hundred
Million) now, 10,000.00 Ghana Cedis compensation for breach of covenant of the
lease document AC. 3223/56 and 2541/1956. <o:p></o:p>3. Any order or orders as the Court
may consider necessary to give effect to the terms”. <o:p></o:p>Upon
filing a defence, the 1st Defendant counterclaimed against the Plaintiff <o:p></o:p>“for a relief against re-entry and
forfeiture in accordance with section 30(1) of the Conveyancing Decree, 1973
(NRCD 175) should the court come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the defence
of the 1st defendant, that a case for re-entry and forfeiture has been made out
by the Plaintiff in the action.” <o:p></o:p>There
were 7 issues for determination when directions were taken. Of the lot, it is
our view that these issues were appropriate for the trial and we make reference
to them as follows; <o:p></o:p>1. “Whether or not the lease has been
reduced to 50 years by operation of law. <o:p></o:p>2. Whether or not the lease has been
superseded by [the] Land Title Registration Law 1986 (PNDC Law 152. <o:p></o:p>3. Whether or not the defendants
neglected to maintain the premises in accordance with the terms of the lease. <o:p></o:p>4. Whether or not the premises was in
a state of disrepair as at 23rd May 2004.” <o:p></o:p>During
the trial the Plaintiff gave evidence called no witnesses but tendered exhibits
A, B, C, D, D1-D5, E series and F. The 2nd Defendant testified for and on
behalf of the Defendants. He called one witness and tendered Exhibits 1 and 2. <o:p></o:p>The
trial Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim and entered judgment for the Defendants
on their counterclaim. Arising out of that decision the Plaintiff filed 12
grounds of appeal impeaching the judgment of the trial court. Most of the
grounds in our view were repetitive and could safely be considered under the
general and omnibus ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.
<o:p></o:p>Co</main>