Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 6, 1961
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.
By the plaintiff's writ of summons, claim was made for £G100 general damages and £G794 special damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff as the result of breaches by defendants of covenants contained in a tenancy agreement dated the 13th November, 1957, entered into between the parties.
JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN
By the statement of claim filed in support of the writ, it was alleged that by the agreement aforesaid the plaintiff as landlord let his property known as Ashgrove House to the defendants at the annual rent of £G480; that by clause 2(c) of the said agreement the defendants covenanted to keep all the internal parts of the dwelling-house and outhouses in tenantable order and sanitary condition (fair wear and tear excepted) during the tenancy; and by clause 2(h) the defendants further covenanted that at the end or sooner determination of the tenancy they would yield up the premises in good and tenantable repair, order and condition, together with certain articles set out in an inventory annexed to the said agreement; that for breaches of certain of the agreement the plaintiff after giving to the defendants 36 hours notice by letter dated the 12th May, 1958, as provided by the agreement, proceeded to determine the tenancy; that on the determination of the tenancy the plaintiff found the demises "in a terrible state of dilapidation as a result of reckless misuse in breach of clauses 2(c) and 2(h) of the agreement" and he was compelled to employ a contractor to put the premises in a tenantable state, and lost rent at £G70 per month for six months until the contractor completed his work. Particulars of the damages alleged suffered and comprised in the amount of £G794 8s. 0d. claimed were detailed in the statement of claim.
The statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendants admitted the tenancy agreement pleaded in the writ and statement of claim, but denied breaches of clauses 2(c) and 2(h) of the said agreement. The statement of defence then proceeded to allege firstly that the defendants vacated the premises on 30th June, 1958, and left same in a tenantable state of repair and in good order and sanitary condition according to the requirements of the tenancy agreement, and secondly that:
"4. Plaintiff failed to maintain the premises adequately in breach of clause 3(a) of the tenancy agreement, and any damage or disrepair was contributed to by his own neglect, especially as regards windows and jalou
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns a landlord–tenant dispute over repair obligations in a lease of Ashgrove House. The landlord sought general and special damages for alleged breaches of tenant covenants to keep internal parts in tenantable repair and to yield up in good condition, and claimed lost rent after determining the tenancy. The tenants denied breach, asserted they left the premises tenantable, and pointed to the landlord’s structural repair covenant. Applying the leading definition from Proudfoot v. Hart, the court held “tenantable repair” depends on age, character, and locality, and rejected claims that decoration was required absent necessity. It found window damage stemmed from inherent construction defects and thus outside tenants’ repair obligations. The court awarded only £G55 for a garage door (based on admitted liability) and £G2 filing cost, dismissing other claims and awarding costs; the appeal was dismissed.