Try asking the following...
JUDGEMENT
PROF. MENSA-BONSU JSC:
“Honour and shame from no condition rise: act well your part, there all the honour lies.” Alexander Pope.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Court of Appeal dated 25th November, 2021, which reversed the judgment of the High Court in respect
of the appellant’s failure to “act well its part” in due time, on a covenant to return leased premises in a state of tenantable repair.
Facts and Background
The genesis of this case was a lease agreement between defendant/respondent appellant, a tertiary educational institution (hereinafter referred to as (‘appellant’) and plaintiff//appellant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’), a private company and the owner of House No. B871/3, Asafoatse Nettey Road (also known as Akosa Plaza), the subject matter of the lease agreement. The agreement was for a term of two years commencing 1st August 2013 to 13th August 2015 at an agreed rent of $19,079.50 and renewable at the option of appellant. In the usual manner, the agreement contained a covenant to hand over the property in a state of tenantable repair. The appellant was to serve notice of intention not to renew the agreement at least 6 months before the expiration of the term.
On 5th May 2015 ie three months to the expiration of the term, the appellant notified respondent of its intention not to seek a renewal of the agreement. This was contrary to the contract requiring 6 months’ notice for the termination of the lease. However, the respondent did not make an issue of it, and reminded the appellant of the covenant to yield up the premises in tenantable repair.
On 27th July, 2015, the respondent reminded the appellant on the agreed works to be carried out before the expiration of the lease to put the place in tenantable repair.
In September 2015 a significant portion of the work had been done but there was a delay in executing outstanding works. Appellant explains that this was due to the presence of respondent’s workmen and also new tenants (AMA) that the respondent had put into the premises. Meanwhile the appellant had vacated the premises and removed all its security personnel. In March 2016, following a joint inspection carried out by representative of appellant and respondent, the respondent sent a list of outstanding works to be carried out by letter dated 4th April 2016. In a subsequent letter dated 18th May 2016, the respondent further furnished appellant with the estimates for the outstanding works on the propert