ROYAL INVESTMENT COMPANY vs. MADAM RUTH QUARCOOPOME AND MADAM ANNA O. QUARCOPOME [2021]DLSC11154

ROYAL INVESTMENT COMPANY vs. MADAM RUTH QUARCOOPOME AND MADAM ANNA O. QUARCOPOM... [2021]DLSC11154

Date	2021-12-01
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/66/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC11154

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

EDWARD ANOKYE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

ANTHONY FORSON JNR. ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS/ APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

[2021]DLSC11154
																																						<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" >ROYAL
INVESTMENT COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MADAM
RUTH QUARCOOPOME AND MADAM ANNA O. QUARCOPOME&nbsp; (DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/66/2021&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
1ST DECEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>EDWARD ANOKYE ESQ. FOR
THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/<o:p></o:p>RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY FORSON JNR. ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS/<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;">

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;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>&nbsp;AMEGATCHER JSC:-<o:p></o:p>It is rare for a party who has had his appeal to
an appellate court allowed to further appeal against the judgment in its favour
to a second appellate court. But, this is what has happened in the current
appeal before us. According to the appellants in paragraph 3 of their affidavit
in support of an application for extension of time to file an appeal and later
in their statement of case, though they were satisfied with the holding and
final outcome of the appeal in the Court of Appeal, the legal reasoning behind
the decision opened another door for the respondent to pursue a third leg of
that litigation by the filing of another writ of summons and an injunction
against them, thus allowing the litigation over the property to persist. We do
not think the appellants can be faulted for this course of action. For when the
legal reasoning behind a decision of court is faulty and will not end the
litigation, it is within the right of any of the parties to challenge that part
of the decision within the hierarchy of the courts. The rules also provide for
this in the notice of appeal where a party can appeal against any part of the
decision of the court he is dissatisfied with.<o:p></o:p>Against this backdrop, the
defendants/applicants/appellants/appellants (hereafter referred to as the
appellants) has filed this appeal to this court against thereasoning behind
part of the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 25 June 2019 allowing an
appeal against the High Court’s ruling which dismissed the appellants’ motionto
strike out the plaintiff/respondent/respondent/respondent’s (hereafter referred
to as the respondent) statement of claim for not disclosing a reasonable cause
of action and to dismiss the suit.<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>By a lease dated 31 January 1976, the appellants
granted a fortyyear term commencing from 1 January 1977 to one Adel Dakmak. <a name="_Hlk80351609">Under the lease, </a>the lessee had to demolish the
existing buildings and erect a modern building on the land. After erecting the
building, Adel Dakmak on 18 September 1980 assigned the residue of the term to
the respondent. The respondent as the assignee therefore became bound by the
terms and conditions of the said lease.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>By clause 4 (c) of the lease, if the lessee was
desirous of taking a new lease at the expiration of the forty years, it had to
notify the lessor in writing not less than three months before the expiration
of the term. The respondent failed to notify the appellants of its intention to
exercise the option to renew the lease prior to its expiration. According to
the respondent, new management took over the company and only obtained a copy
of the lease in or around December 2016. Furthermore, the respondent claimed
that it could not locate the appellants to seek for a renewal.<o:p></o:p>On the 19thApril 2017, the appellants
by a letter notified the respondent of theexpiration of the lease as far back
as 31stDecember 2016 and demanded a surrender of the property. In
the ensuing correspondence, the respondent indicated its desire to renew the
lease. This prompted an offer from the appellants to negotiate a new lease but
attempts between the parties to negotiate was unsuccessful.The respondent then
raised the legal issue of a breach of the lease agreement on its part for not
giving the appellants the requisite notice for renewal and demanded that the appellants
complied with sections 29 and 30 of the provisions of the now repealed
Conveyancing Act 1973 (NRCD 175) to serve it notice of the breach to enable it
remedy the breach.<o:p></o:p>High Court Proceedings<o:p></o:p>When the parties could not agree on the legal
issues arising from the renewal of the lease, the respondent issued a writ of
summons and statem</main>