GBEDEMAH v. OFORI
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AMUAH JJA
- LAMPTEY
- AMPIAH
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, the owner of a house in Accra, sued the defendant for recovery of possession and mesne profits after the defendant refused to vacate the house despite the expiration of an oral lease and non-payment of rent. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff reasonably needed the house for personal use. On appeal, the court upheld the initial judgment, stating that non-compliance with Regulation 18 of LI 369 did not invalidate the plaintiffs case and that the N.D.C. had no jurisdiction over the matter. The plaintiff was entitled to possession as the trial judge found that the plaintiff reasonably required the premises.
JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH JA.
The plaintiff in this case is the undisputed owner of house No 1, Second Dade Walk, North Labone, Accra. This was a house which he had bought in order to live in with his family. [p.348] It consisted of a main block and an out-house. The house needed some repairs. The evidence shows that some time after the purchase of the house the plaintiff left the country and placed the house under the caretakership of one Godfried Obeng Boateng. The defendant and his wife were said to be very good friends of the plaintiff’s wife; the defendant's wife was the schoolmate of the plaintiff’s wife. The defendant who was in dire need of accommodation for himself and his family approached Mr Boateng through the plaintiff’s wife to plead for the renting of the house. The request was acceded to and after some repairs on the premises, the defendant and his family moved in at a monthly rent of ¢1,000 considering the fact that the defendant had to effect the repairs at his own cost. A year's rent was paid in advance. After the plaintiff had returned to the country he went to the defendant and requested that he moved into his (plaintiff’s) house at Nima so that he (the plaintiff) could move into the house in which the defendant was living since he had purchased the house specifically for his own use. The defendant refused, complaining that he had effected repairs on the house amounting to about ¢97,000. The plaintiff further requested that if the defendant was desirous of staying in his house then he should advance him (the plaintiff) an amount of ¢100,000 to enable him (the plaintiff) complete a block of flats he was putting up in order to give him (the defendant) one. This also the defendant turned down. This misunderstanding developed into an impasse which later found itself before the National Defence Committee (N.D.C). It would appear that the proceedings before the N.D.C. could not resolve the conflict. Consequently, the plaintiff brought this action claiming from the defendant: "(a) an order for recovery of possession of house No 1, Second Dade Walk, North Labone, Accra; and (b) mesne profit." The apparent grounds for the claim being, that: "(1) the oral lease for a term of two years had expired and the plaintiff requires the premises for his personal occupation; and (2) the defendant is refusing to pay rent." The main issue for determination was "whether or not the plaintiff reasonably needs the premises for his own occupation and that of his fami