HAMID v. OKATA AND OTHERS
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM
- OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A.
- LAMPTEY
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Muideen Hamid sought to evict tenants from his stores in Accra, initially losing at the District Court Grade I. The High Court overturned this ruling, which the tenants then appealed. The defendants argued that the rent officer lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. The appellate court concluded that the Rent Act and Rent Regulations empowered the rent officer to handle such cases and that procedural compliance by the landlord was sufficient. The court found that the High Court's decision was well-supported and the burden of proof had appropriately shifted to the tenants, who failed to provide contrary evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.A.
On 3 June 1987 the District Court Grade I, Accra dismissed an action by Muideen Hamid (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against Kwadjo Okata and two others (hereinafter referred to [p.422] as the defendants) by which he sought an order of ejectment and recovery of possession of three stores at Okaishie in Accra. The plaintiff-landlord was aggrieved by that judgment and appealed to the High Court, Accra. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the District Court Grade I, Accra. The defendant-tenants are dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, Accra and appealed to this court on a number of grounds.
Before us learned counsel for the defendants argued only two of the grounds of appeal. The first ground which was argued with considerable force was that the rent officer who received and investigated the claim of the plaintiff for ejectment and recovery of possession of the three stores had no jurisdiction in the matter of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the report of the rent officer embodying his recommendation to the rent magistrate was in law wrongly received and acted upon by the rent magistrate. The other ground of appeal argued before us was that the judgment was against the weight of evidence before the court.
I will deal with the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that nowhere in the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) is power and right given to a rent officer to accept complaints involving the ejectment from and recovery of possession of premises. In the instant case the rent officer received and investigated a case of ejectment and recovery of three stores. The rent officer recommended to the rent magistrate that the said rent magistrate adopt the findings and recommendations made by the rent officer. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the rent officer was without lawful authority and the report submitted by the rent officer to the rent magistrate should have been rejected by the magistrate. He submitted that the rent magistrate erred in law in receiving the report of the rent officer and proceeding to act on it. He referred to and relied on section 5 of Act 220 in support of his submission. He cited the cases of Saad v. City Food Supply (Ghana) Ltd., High Court, Accra, 21 November 1966; digested in (1967) C.C. 33 and Sfarijilani v. Basil [1973] 2 G.L.R. 260, C.A. Learned counsel for the plain