C.F.A.O. v. THOME
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AZU CRABBE
- APALOO
- BRUCE-LYLE JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a tenancy agreement made in 1949 where the defendant failed to deliver the premises in a 'good and tenantable' condition upon lease expiration in 1959. The court ruled that the rent of G45 was the standard rent, but awarded mesne profits based on the fair rental value of G60 due to inflation and economic changes. The court found the defendant liable for failing to make necessary repairs but replaced the specific performance order with a damages award. The appeal was dismissed, and the original ruling was modified, enabling the plaintiff to receive mesne profits and damages.
JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.
The respondent (whom I shall hereinafter refer to as the plaintiff) is the owner of a building situate on plots 21 and 22, Antoa Road, Kumasi. That building comprises a store on the ground floor and flats on the first floor. The evidence shows that the building was erected in 1930. Early in 1949, the appellant company (hereinafter called the company) were desirous of letting the entire premises. It seems that the terms of the letting were orally agreed upon between the plaintiff and the company. These terms were subsequently embodied in a letter written by the company to the plaintiff and dated 1 April 1949 (exhibit A). It seems to have been the intention of the parties that these terms should be embodied in a formal lease to be subsequently executed between the parties. It appears no formal lease was in fact executed between the parties but nothing in this case has turned upon this.
Although this was a home-made agreement, it in fact contains most of the terms usually met with in leases drawn up by professional conveyancers. The agreement reserved a rent of £G45 which was to be paid quarterly in advance. The company were entitled to sublet the whole or part of the premises without consent, to have quiet possession and so forth. It would seem that at the date of the letting, the premises were in a state of disrepair. Accordingly, the company agreed to put them in a habitable condition and to spend for this purpose a sum of money estimated at £G500. As an addendum to [p.110] the letter embodying the terms of the agreement, there was also written in long hand, the following: "At the expiration of the tenancy, the premises to be handed over in good and tenantable condition." According to the agreement, the entire premises were let to the company for a term of five years certain, with an option for a similar duration on the same terms and conditions.
This agreement took effect from 1 April 1949. The initial term expired on 31 March 1954, but the company exercised their option and renewed it for a further five years. The whole agreement expired by effluxion of time on 31 March 1959 and the company were then under an obligation to give to the plaintiff vacant possession of the entire premises and in accordance with their agreement, in a "good and tenantable condition." The company however renewed their tenancy of the stores only. They offered to pay the plaintiff rent at the rate of £G75 per month. This, the latter accepted. They r