2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiffs sub-leased the Tesano sports club to the Defendants and later sought recovery of possession. Defendants counterclaimed but lost in both the District Court and High Court. On appeal, the court found that the suit was a nullity because the Plaintiffs counsel was not licensed at the time of issuing the writ. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and judgments from both lower courts were set aside.
JUDGMENT
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 19th October 2016 by which it dismissed the Defendants/Appellant’s (Defendant hereafter) appeal against the judgment of the District Court given in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents (Plaintiffs hereafter).
The background of this case as is relevant to the present appeal can be summarized as follows.
The Plaintiffs who had a long lease on a piece of land put up the Tesano sports club on a portion and sub leased it to the Defendants on 26th April 1971. In or about September 2011, the Plaintiffs offered the Defendants the opportunity to purchase the club. The offer was rejected. Plaintiffs thereafter wrote to the Defendants and asked them to bring their activities to a close in the light of their intention to offer the property to other interested parties. They followed this up with a letter giving one year’s notice of their intention to terminate the lease. They issued the present writ in the District Court a year later on 18th February 2013 for recovery of possession. The Defendants denied their claim and also counterclaimed for the following reliefs:
A declaration that by virtue of the agreement entered into between the parties on 26th April, 1961 the Defendant’s lease with the Plaintiff will expire on or around 31 June, 2019 and as such the Defendant claims continued possession and enjoyment of the property.
A declaration that upon the expiration of the tenancy agreement entered into between the parties the Defendant as per clause 4 (b) of the lease agreement has an option to renew the lease for a further thirty one (31) years.
Costs and such further order as the Honourable Court may deem fit.
As stated earlier, Plaintiffs obtained judgment. Defendants appealed to the High Court and lost and so have launched the present appeal.
Four grounds of appeal were filed in this case with the intimation that further grounds would be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal. No such further grounds were filed. The four grounds of appeal filed are as follows
The Judgment is against the weight of the evidence.
The trial Court erred in law by inter alia failing or refusing to strike out the substantive suit as being a nullity and of no legal effect given (a) the determination of the trial court that at the time the action initiated counsel for the plaintiff was not licensed to practice pursuant to section 8(1) of Act 32(b) the trial Court found itself boun