Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
December 15, 1944
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
Judgment :
On the 23rd September, 1943, the defendants obtained a consent Judgment in this Court against the Plaintiff for recovery of possession, on the 31st December, 1943, of the defendants' commercial premises No. N160/10 at Boundary Road, Accra, which the Plaintiff had been occupying as the defendants' tenant at a monthly rental of £1910/.
Prior to this Judgment the defendants had granted the Accra Perfumery Co. Ltd. an option to take a lease of the same premises at a monthly rental of £32, the lease and term to be entered upon on the Phaintiff vacating the premises.
The Plaintiff failed to vacate the premises on the 31st December because he had no alternative accommodation. In consequence of this default the defendants applied for, and a Writ was issued by the Court upon their Judgment to place them in possession of the property. Thereupon, in a further proceeding, a consent Order was made by the Court on the 29th January, 1944 whereby the plaintiff was to give up possession of the premises unconditionally at the end of February, 1944.
The Plaintiff then, to the knowledge of the defendants, arranged with the Manager of the Accra Perfumery Company to continue his occupation of the property for a further 3 or 6 months under the option of the Accra Perfumery Company for a lease of the premises.
The Accra Perfumery Company had, in fact, no lease at the time, been they had the right to call for a lease and, with the consent of the defendants, they assigned that right for at least 6 months, and with it the right to occupy the premises for that period, to the Plaintiff. The Defendants, in pursuance of this arrangement, allowed the Plaintiff's reoccupation continue and they received from the Plaintiff rent quarterly in advance for 6 months at the rate of £32 per month. By their first receipt for rent Exibit " C ", the Defendants represented to the Plaintiff that he was a teeant of the Accra Perfumery Company and, therefore, their sub-tenant.
Whatever view the Accra Perfumery Company may take as to their rights it is clear that the Defendants are estopped from denying the representation they had made to the Plaintiff that he was the Company's tenant under a tenancy created after the second consent Order of the 29th January, 1944.
There is no doubt that the defendants were content to have the Plaintiff or the Accra Perfumery Company as their tenant so long as they received the increased rent of £32. Thinking, however, that his position had been consolid
AI Generated Summary
In 1943, the landlords of commercial premises No. N160/10 on Boundary Road, Accra obtained a consent judgment requiring their tenant to vacate by 31 December. Before that, they granted Accra Perfumery Co. Ltd. an option to lease at £32 per month. The tenant failed to vacate and, after a second consent order in January 1944, arranged with the Perfumery Company’s manager, with the landlords’ knowledge and consent, to continue occupation under the company’s option. Accra Perfumery assigned its right to call for a lease and temporary occupancy to the tenant. The defendants allowed re‑occupation and accepted rent at £32, issuing a receipt representing the tenant as Accra Perfumery’s tenant. Later, the tenant secured a rent reduction under Rent Restriction Regulations to £19 10s; the landlords accepted one reduced payment then sought to enforce their writ of possession. The Court, per Coussey J., held it had jurisdiction under Order 44 rule 5 to declare the writ unenforceable and, finding a new tenancy at will created after judgment and estoppel against the landlords, confirmed the tenant’s possession and awarded costs.