Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 7, 1980
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.
This is an appeal against the order of the Rent Magistrate, Sekondi, for the recovery of possession of house No. 3, Ketan Estate, Sekondi, from the appellant; the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) having given the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) six months’ notice to quit, which had expired on 30 April 1979. The tenant failed to give up possession. The ground upon which the landlord demanded vacant possessions is contained in an affidavit which accompanied the application for a writ of summons which is as follows:
“I, Wilhelmina Zweness of Sekondi make oath and say as follows:
(1) That I am the deponent herein.
(2) That I swear to this affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff whose authority I have to do so.
(3) That the plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the Efaina family of Elmina on whose behalf the plaintiff acts.
(4) That the plaintiff is desirous of remodelling the said house No. 3, Ketan Estate, of which the defendant is a tenant and six months’ previous notice to that effect had been given to the defendant who has refused and still refuses to quit.
(5) That the plaintiff’s niece who is a seamstress has entered into a reputable firm to make dresses for sale and she needs the premises to be remodelled for occupation and start to operate.
(6) That I swear to this affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s application for a writ of summons to issue.”
As far as can be gathered from the affidavit, the landlord intended to remodel the premises and then to give it to his niece for the purpose of her business as a seamstress. No investigations were conducted either by the rent magistrate or by a rent officer as provided by the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), and no evidence was taken by the rent magistrate. The only evidence before the magistrate is that contained in the affidavit. Indeed, the whole trial was conducted in a summary manner; the tenant being asked to plead to, after reading and explaining [p.870] to him what was called a charge. Perhaps it would be useful to reproduce the entire proceedings which are:
“Parties present.
Mr. Erskine (Snr.) for the plaintiff present.
Claim: Ejectment.
C.R. & E. in English: Plea liable I plead for extension of time.
By court: Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is to quit the plaintiff’s home on or before 31 December 1979. The plaintiff is awarded ¢50 costs.”
The tenant appealed
AI Generated Summary
This appeal, decided by Justice Sarkodee, arises from the Sekondi Rent Magistrate’s summary ejectment of a tenant from house No. 3, Ketan Estate, Sekondi, after a six‑month notice to quit expired on 30 April 1979. The landlord’s application was supported only by an affidavit sworn by Wilhelmina Zweness of Sekondi, acting for the plaintiff and the Efaina family of Elmina, stating the premises were needed to be remodelled for the landlord’s niece, a seamstress, to start operations. No rent officer investigation occurred and the magistrate took no evidence, instead immediately entering judgment after a perfunctory hearing; Mr. Erskine (Snr.) appeared for the plaintiff. The appellate court held that under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) and Rent Regulations, 1964 (L.I. 369), the magistrate had to consider all relevant circumstances, apply regulation 18, and balance comparative hardship. Justice Sarkodee set aside the order and directed a trial de novo, emphasizing tenant protection and the option of reinstatement under section 18 when remodelling displaces a statutory tenant.