CHARLES LAWRENCE QUIST (SUBSTITUTED BY DIANA QUIST) v. AHMED DANAWI
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD (MRS), C.J. (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH, J.S.C
- DOTSE, J.S.C
- BONNIE, J.S.C
- AKAMBA, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Landlord-Tenant Law
- Equity
- Evidence
- Contract Law
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the defendants appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the plaintiff had waived his right to forfeit the lease by his actions and inactions.
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC:-
On 17/1/77 the defendants/appellants, The Danawis, hereinafter defendants, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff/respondents, Emmanuel Charles Quist, hereinafter plaintiff in respect of a plot of land. They and a third person Fisal Danawi also entered into a lease agreement in respect of an adjoining land this time with one E.C. Quist-Therson. They developed the two plots into commercial premises from where they conducted their business.
Sometime later Nii Kwabena Bonnie, Osu Alata Mantse, brought an action against them in respect of the land granted by Quist Therson claiming that the land formed part of Osu Alata stool. The High Court, coram, Osei Hwere J (as he then was), declared title in respect of the other plot of land in the Osu Alata Mantse making Nii Kwabena Bonne the new landlord of the defendants in respect of the adjoining plot of land.
I wish here to reiterate that the original lessors in the original transactions were Charles Quist (the plaintiff herein) and QUIST THERSON in respect of the other plot of land.
On 21/April/1992, claiming that the defendants were in arrears of rent from 1982, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendants reminding them of the arrears of rent. But this letter was no ordinary reminder of non-payment of rent. The letter carried in its belly a speculation that the defendants’ failure to pay rent was due to an opinion the defendants had formed that the plaintiff was no longer their landlord by virtue of the judgment of Osei Hwere J (as he then was), in respect of the other plot. He then continued
”if that is correct then you are in breach of a fundamental obligation on your part as lessees, namely, the obligation to respect and not to dispute, challenge or throw any doubt on your landlord’s title to the property leased or let out to you. By so doing you have in law rendered the lease liable to forfeiture and my client hereby gives you formal notice that he has forfeited the lease…..”
So the letter that set out to remind the respondent of his rent arrears went on to speculate on a reason for the non-payment of rent and concluded that based on that reason the defendant had denied the landlord’s title and thereby rendered her lease liable to forfeiture! The letter that started with a reminder of nonpayment of rent ended as a notice to quit, not for arrears of rent but on the grounds of denial of title
In reply the defendant counsel wrote on the 24th of April 1992 denying that there was