ALAMEDDINE BROTHERS v. PATERSON ZOCHONIS AND CO., LTD.
1971
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- SIRIBOE J.S.C.
- SOWAH
- ARCHER JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1971
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Sowah J.A., dismissed an appeal by long-occupying tenants of a shop in premises No. D 893/3 at Selwyn Market Street owned by Paterson Zochonis & Co., Ltd. The dispute arose after the respondents served a one-month notice on 12 January 1967, followed by a six-month notice under section 17(1)(h) of the Rent Act, 1963, seeking possession to expand their business, including distribution for a new N¢300,000 factory at Tema. The magistrate found the tenancy was monthly and the premises reasonably required, and granted possession; the High Court affirmed. On further appeal, the tenants challenged the tenancy characterization, the validity of the January notice’s timing, and an alleged regulatory precondition. The Court held no proven variation from monthly tenancy; the notice timing issue was not properly raised; and regulation 18 did not impose a condition precedent. Reasonableness under section 17(1)(h) concerned the landlord’s requirement alone, mandating possession once satisfied. Siriboe J.S.C. and Archer J.A. concurred.
JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.
This is an appeal from the concurrent judgments of the District Magistrate's Court and the High Court, Accra, both upholding the validity of a notice to quit given by the respondents to the appellants under section 17 (1)(h) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), and granting the respondents' claim to possession of a shop occupied by the appellants.
Some time in 1958, upon an oral grant, the appellants took possession of one store in premises No. D 893/3, situate at Selwyn Market Street owned by the respondents at a monthly rent of N¢80.00 per month. About July 1959, the appellants applied to the rent assessment committee for an assessment of the premises and this was duly done. The monthly rent was reduced to N¢45.00 which thereafter became the standard rent of the store.
The appellants appeared to have enjoyed quiet possession until 12 January 1967, when they received the following notice:
"I the undersigned give you one (1) month's notice from the date hereof on behalf of my client Paterson Zochonis and Co., Ltd. to quit and deliver up possession of the premises at Selwyn Market Street in respect of which you are its tenant.
My client requires to use the premises for its business purposes."
They immediately caused a reply to be sent by their solicitors disputing the respondents' right to possession. Notwithstanding this denial, the respondents proceeded on 16 February 1967, to give a further notice of six months in accordance with the Act.
On or about 14 September 1967, the respondents took out a writ in the magistrate's court claiming possession after reciting some of the facts already herein referred to. Though the appellants, in a court of summary jurisdiction, were not obliged to file a statement of defence unless so ordered or upon agreement with the opposing party, nevertheless they thought it expedient to do so.
[p.406]
In that defence, the appellants recounted their period of occupation of the store, questioned the bona fides of the respondents and the reasonableness of the request. They further denied the validity of the notice to quit and averred that the said notice was incompetent to terminate the tenancy; they raised the issue of hardship which would ensue from their ejectment. In short, every conceivable defence which would avail a defendant in such circumstance was raised.
Issue was immediately joined by the parties as to whether the respondents were entitled to or ought to be given possession under section 17