VICTORIA ANNANG (EXECUTRIX OF THE LATE EBENEZER QUARSHIE ANNANG) (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT) vs. EMOHO TRADING GH. LTD, RAMESH PUNJAB, SHAM PUNJAB, MAHESH JAYSINGHANI AND FREDERICK ANIM- ADDO (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS) [2019]DLSC7845

VICTORIA ANNANG (EXECUTRIX OF THE LATE EBENEZER QUARSHIE ANNANG) (PLAINTIFF/RESP... [2019]DLSC7845

Date	2019-11-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEALSUIT NO. J4/13/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC7845

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

ERIC NARH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS.

[2019]DLSC7845
																																						<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" >VICTORIA ANNANG
(EXECUTRIX OF THE LATE EBENEZER QUARSHIE ANNANG)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMOHO TRADING
GH. LTD, RAMESH PUNJAB, SHAM PUNJAB, MAHESH JAYSINGHANI AND FREDERICK ANIM-
ADDO (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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">

<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">CIVIL APPEALSUIT NO. J4/13/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 20TH NOVEMBER
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME FOSU GYEABOUR FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<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">

ERIC NARH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, DORDZIE JSC, AMEGATCHER
JSC<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>THE
UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS READ BY MARFUL-SAU JSC, AS FOLLOWS-:<o:p></o:p>This appeal invites this Court to determine a
fundamental issue, which is the legal effect of non- compliance of section 29
of the Conveyancing Act, 1973, NRCD 152, dealing with re- entry and forfeiture
of a lease upon breach of a covenant. The brief facts of the case are that, the
father of the Plaintiff/ Respondent/Appellant, herein referred to simply as
Plaintiff, the late Ebenezer Quarshie Annang, granted a fifty (50) years lease
in 1968 to one Shahin Elias Shahin. This lease was registered as No. 939/ 1968,
and was tendered at the trial as ‘’Exhibit C’’. In 1970, the 1968 lease was
varied with a provision that the lease will be subject to renewal for another
twenty-five (25) years. The Deed of Variation was registered as No.419/1970.
Then around the same year Shahin Elias Shahin assigned his interest in the
leased property to one Joseph Anim- Addo through a sub- lease. The Plaintiff’s
case simply, is that the sub-lease between Shahin Elias Shahin and Joseph Anim-
Addo offended clause 2(d) of the head- lease, which stipulated that Shahin
Elias Shahin could only sublet the lease with the written consent of her father
Ebenezer Quarshie Annang. On these facts the Plaintiff sued the defendants,
claiming the following:-<o:p></o:p>‘’ a) Declaration that
registered lease no. 350/1970 between Shahin and Anim- Addo was made in breach
of clause 2 (d) of the lease dated 20th February, 1968 between the
late E. O. Annang and the late Shahin and therefore null and void.<o:p></o:p>(b) An order cancelling
registered lease number 939/ 1968 and 419/ 1970 for breach of covenant therein.<o:p></o:p>(c) An order cancelling
registered lease no. 350/ 1970 as having been obtained in breach of covenant in
registered lease no. 939/ 1968 and on ground of fraud.<o:p></o:p>(d) Recovery of possession.<o:p></o:p>(e) Damages for trespass.’’<o:p></o:p>The trial High Court after taking evidence entered
judgment for the Plaintiff and granted all the reliefs endorsed on her writ of
summons. The defendants aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, appealed
to the Court of Appeal which upheld the appeal in part and made the following
orders, appearing at pages 325 and 326 of the record of appeal:-<o:p></o:p>‘’1. That the late Shahin
breached the covenant when he assigned his interest in the demised premises to
the late Anim-Addo without the prior written consent of the lessor, Ebenezer
Quarshie Annang, the plaintiff’s late father;<o:p></o:p>2. That the said breach
committed by Shahin makes the lease voidable and not null and void ‘’ab
initio’’.<o:p></o:p>3. That the plaintiff/lessor
or sub-lessor must give the 5th defendant sub-lessee notice to
re-negotiate and re-settle for ground rent to be paid by the said sub-lessee to
the plaintiff sub-lessor with effect from 1st January, 2017.<o:p></o:p>4. We hereby set aside the
following orders of the trial court forthwith:<o:p></o:p>a. A declaration that the
Assignment between Shahin and Anim-Addo dated 1/2/1970 is null and void; <o:p></o:p></main>