KOBINA AKROMAH BEDFORD vs. GEORGE ASIAMAH TEMA DEVT. CORPORATION [2015]DLCA8009

Date	2015-02-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/201/2012
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8009

OFOE J.A

[2015]DLCA8009
																																						<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" >KOBINA AKROMAH BEDFORD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF
/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>GEORGE ASIAMAH<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>TEMA DEVT.
CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>(2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. HI/201/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH
&nbsp;&nbsp;FEBRUARY, 2015<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

OFOE
J.A&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE, J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
is a supporting opinion that views the appeal from the factual angle. My sister
has dealt sufficiently with the legal underpinnings relevant to this appeal and
I wholly agree with her opinion.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff sued the defendants asking for
a declaration of title to House No AM 15, Community 7, Tema, recovery of
possession of the room occupied by the 1st defendant, and a
declaration that the transfer of legal tenancy and sale of the said property by
the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant is null and void
and of no effect. He also asked that the court declares that the 2nd
defendant is estopped from denying the tenancy of the plaintiff of the said
house. <o:p></o:p>The pleadings supporting these claims can be
summarized as follows: The plaintiff’s father, C.C. Bedford, was allocated the
said property, which I will hence forth refer to as A.M 15, on the 1st
of September 1986. The property was confiscated from a previous owner by the
State Houses Allocation Policy Implementation Commission (SHAPIC) and allocated
to his father who was subsequently recognized as a tenant by Tema Development Corporation (TDC), the 2nd
defendant in this case. The plaintiff’s pleadings allege that since there
were others in possession of the property the SHAPIC advised the plaintiff’s
father to hold on until the other tenants were ejected. The 1st defendant who
was a member of the CDR, one of the revolutionary organs at the time, forced
himself into the house and would not move out even though he had been allocated
a room in another community, Community 2. By his pleadings, he was staying with
the father in this A,M15 before his death and by this symbiotic relationship he
believes he became the sitting tenant. For unknown reasons the SHAPIC directed
that the legal tenancy be given to the 1st defendant who now purports to have
purchased the house from the TDC. According to the plaintiff, since the TDC has
been collecting rents from him since the father’s death he does not see the
reason why the 1st defendant should be allocated this property. His case on the
pleadings concluded that he is a sitting tenant and cannot be denied his tenancy.<o:p></o:p>The 1st defendant’s response appears simple.
He was in occupation of this property since 1983 before the plaintiff’ father
was brought to live in the house on humanitarian grounds. It is not therefore
true that he forcibly entered the property. The property was allocated to him
by SHAPIC and TDC recognized him as the tenant and subsequently sold the
property to him. By a letter dated the 19th of October 1993 SHAPIC
ordered the ejection of the plaintiff for the plaintiff to take occupation of
another property in Community 2 but the plaintiff has refused to move. Based on
these pleadings he has also counterclaimed for recover of possession and
damages for trespass. <o:p></o:p>At the trial court the plaintiff testified
emphasizing that the father was the tenant of this property. He tendered all
documentation in respect of the father’s allocation of the property by SHAPIC
and the recognition by the TDC as their legal tenant. All rent cards and
payments were in the deceased father’s name. The documents tendered run from
exhibit A to F. Defendant testified and tendered his rent payment receipts and
purchase receipts.<o:p></o:p>After trial the court dismissed all of
plaintiff’s claims and granted the 1st defendant’s counterclaim to
recover possession. This has provoked this appeal on the sole ground that the
judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>Counsel was very terse in substance in
arguing this ground of appeal. He contended that the 2nd defendant
is estopped from denying the tenancy of the plaintiff in so far as they
continued to take rent from the plaintiff after the death of the father. He
contended further that there was evidence the 1st defendant had been
offered another room in another community but had refused to move. The 1st
defendant also tendered no letter of allocation by SHAPIC nor showed any
receipts of rent or purchase payments. Counsel submitted that if the trial
judge had adverted his mind to these pieces of evidence he would have granted
the plaintiff’s claims. <o:p></o:p>