December 4, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court landlord3tenant dispute arises from a 2015 tenancy between Mr. Eugene Asiama-Boadi and Mr. Ernest Opoku Agyemang for three storey buildings used for a financial services business. After paying the 2016 annual rent, Asiama-Boadi failed to pay rent due on 1 January 2017, proposing a post-dated cheque for 31 March, which Agyemang rejected and served a notice to quit on 17 March. On 4 May 2017, Agyemang re-entered and evicted the occupants; Plaintiffs alleged unlawful eviction and damage to office wares, and sought substantial special and general damages. The court found the tenancy7s clause 4 authorized re-entry where rent was 90 days in arrears or obligations breached, and held that Plaintiffs became subject to re-entry despite arguments about statutory tenancy under Section 36 of the Rent Act. Plaintiffs failed to prove specific property damage. The court enforced a GH100,000 handwritten undertaking by Asiama-Boadi and found a breach of clause 2(h) through subletting to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs7 claims were dismissed; Defendant7s counterclaim and damages were granted.
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiffs issued out their Writ of Summons claiming against the Defendant
as follows:-
a. Special Damages for the sum of One Million, Two Hundred Thousand
Ghana Cedis (GH¢1,200,000.00) for destroyed and missing office
wares.
b. General Damages for the sum of One Million Ghana Cedis
(GH¢1,000,000.00).
c. Cost including legal fees.
The Defendant also counter-claimed against the Plaintiffs as follows:-
a) A declaration that the 1
st Plaintiff breached the Tenancy Agreement
executed by the parties on the 29th December, 2015 on the grounds of;
i. Failure to pay rent on due date
ii. Sub-letting the property to 3rd Parties i.e. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs
without the knowledge, consent and authorization of the
Defendant.
iii. Damages for breach of contract.
iv. Order for specific performance of the handwritten agreement
prepared by the 1
st Plaintiff and executed by the Parties on 2nd
June, 2017.
v. Cost.
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE:
The 1
st Plaintiff filed a Witness Statement on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
In their Witness Statement, the 1st Plaintiff stated that he (1st Plaintiff)
executed a Tenancy Agreement with the Defendant on 29th December 2015.
According to the 1st Plaintiff in the said Tenancy Agreement, he was to take
up for rent three separate storey buildings for the purpose of using same for
his financial business. The monthly rent was US$4,500.00 for all the three
separate storey building blocks.
The 1st Plaintiff paid the annual rent of Fifty Four Thousand US Dollars
(US$54,000.00) covering 1
st January 2016 – 31st December, 2016. This was
renewable for the next 2 years i.e. the year 2017 and 2018.
After the expiration of the year 2016, the 1st Plaintiff opted to pay rent for the
year 2017 per a post-dated cheque, payable on 31st March, 2017 (instead of
the 1st January, 2017). This offer was rejected by the Defendant. The
Defendant therefore served a Notice of Eviction on the 1st Plaintiff on the 17th
March, 2017.
On the 4th day of May 2017, the Defendant entered the premises with thugs
(which he claimed are his workmen) and forcibly evicted the 1st Plaintiff and
other Plaintiffs, throwing out all of Plaintiffs office-wares and belongings
outside the office premises. These office-wares were left at the mercy of the
weather and it rained on them on that fateful day.
According to the 1st Plaintiff, upon these acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs
were compelled to move their wares from the Defendant