AKWASI GYIMA-BOTA v. B.C.M. GHANA LIMITED

On 02-05-2006, the plaintiff issued a writ in this court in which he claims the following reliefs:

“1. The sum of GH¢1,840.00 being cost of repairs.

2. Interest at the prevailing bank rate till date of final payment.

3. Cost.”

The facts the plaintiff rely on to support his claims as set out in the statement of claim are as follows:

Sometime in November, 2004, the plaintiff entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant for the renting of his house in Kenyase, in the Brong Ahafo Region of the Republic of Ghana. At the expiration of the tenancy agreement, the defendant left the premises in an untenantable condition, e.g. gaping air conditioner holes on the walls of the building, removal of floor tiles, unpainted walls, damaged electrical sockets, etc.

The plaintiff had verbal discussion of the state of the house with the officers of the defendants in Accra and followed it up with a letter requesting the defendant to repair the damage to the property but the latter failed and/or neglected to repair it. He, therefore, repaired the property to restore same to a tenantable condition at the cost of GH ¢1,840.00. Thereafter, he requested the defendant to reimburse him but the latter refused or failed to do so. He, therefore, brought the instant action.

The defendant disputes the plaintiff’s action. The facts upon which the defendant relies as stated in the statement of defence are as follows:

Sometime in November, 2004, the plaintiff presented an unsigned tenancy agreement to the Project Manager of the defendant’s Kenyase site and the latter signed the said agreement only after making certain amendments. The plaintiff took away the agreement but did not return a copy signed by himself to the defendant. The said tenancy agreement was for a year’s lease which was to expire sometime in October, 2005.

The defendant denies that it left the premises in an untenantable condition at the expiration of the tenancy. The defendant states that sometime in July 2005, the defendant gave the plaintiff notice to quite the premises and indicated that it wanted to seal up holes which would be left after it removed air conditioners it had fixed for the duration of occupancy by its employee. The plaintiff responded that the defendant should hold on until he had secured new tenants who might want to use the same holes for fixing air conditioners.

Furthermore, the defendant denies that its officers had a verbal discussion with the plaintiff, in Accra, in respect of the