PETER ADJEI vs. LORIENT KAL GHANA LTD. [2020]DLHC16487

Date	2020-11-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0755/2017
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC16487

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

ISAAC OFOSU-BOATENG WITH DARKOA AKROFI AMANOR AND RUTH-ANNE MILLS-TETTEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SEAN POKU WITH NANA BOAKYE MENSAH-BONSU FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2020]DLHC16487
																																						<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" >PETER ADJEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LORIENT KAL GHANA LTD. <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. LD/0755/2017&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
24TH&nbsp;NOVEMBER 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ISAAC
OFOSU-BOATENG WITH DARKOA AKROFI AMANOR AND RUTH-ANNE MILLS-TETTEH FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;Introduction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The genesis of this suit is a Sub-Lease
Agreement that was executed between the parties to this suit in 2015. It
appeared that the parties were having a smooth transaction until issues came up
with respect to the payment of the second tranche of the consideration by the
defendant. The issues with the payment of the said consideration eventually led
to the institution of this present action.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Plaintiff’s
case<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the plaintiff’s case that the
parties entered into a Sub-Lease Agreement under which the plaintiff subleased
to the defendant its three (3) bedroom single-storey house situate at East
Legon, Accra (valued at US$426,242.00 as at January 2015) for a term of twenty
five (25) years renewable for a further term of ten (10) years. The
consideration for the first ten (10) years of the term was Sixty Six Thousand
United States Dollars (US$66,000.00) or its cedi equivalent per annum bringing
the total for the first ten years to Six Hundred and Sixty Thousand United
States Dollars (US$660,000.00). <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was agreed that the defendant was to
pay half of the said US$660,000.00 being Three Hundred and Thirty Thousand
United States Dollars (US$330,000.00) in advance upon the execution of the
Sub-Lease and this was duly paid and the defendant was given vacant possession
of the property. The remaining half was payable within a year but not later
than 31st March 2016. Per the agreement, if the defendant failed or
was unable to pay the remaining half by the said date, the amount would attract
interest of 1% per month till date of final payment. The defendant however
defaulted in the payment of the remaining amount of US$330,000.00. The
plaintiff made several demands on the defendant to settle its indebtedness. The
defendant admitted its default and promised to pay the outstanding debt but the
defendant reneged on its promise to pay. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff further states that when
the defendant took vacant possession of the property, it demolished the
plaintiff’s three bedroom building on the land and commenced the construction
of a multi-purpose apartment on the land by erecting a foundation. The
defendant however abandoned the land after constructing the foundation and the
land has been overgrown with weeds and stagnant water collects in the
foundation whenever it rains – an ideal environment for the breeding of
mosquitoes. This has been a source of nuisance and inconvenience to adjoining
properties and neighbours of the defendant all of whom are tenants of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that it has had to engage workmen to weed the
property and drain the stagnant water that collects on the property thereby
incurring additional cost. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is further the plaintiff’s case that
it caused its lawyers to write to the defendant to notify the defendant about
its breach of the covenant to pay rent and requested the defendant to take
steps to remedy the breach within a month failing which the plaintiff will
exercise its right of re-entry but this was not acceded to by the defendant.
The plaintiff therefore states that the defendant is bent on disregarding the
terms of the Sub-Lease unless ordered by the court to either specifically
perform its obligations or deliver vacant possession of the property to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore issued the current writ on 6th
July 2017 claiming the following reliefs against the defendant: <o:p></o:p>