BEN MIREKU & ORS v. ARCHIBALD OKPON TETTEH & ORS

SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS), J.S.C: Delivered the Judgment of the court

FACTS

The Plaintiffs/ Respondents/ Appellants hereinafter (Plaintiffs) are the beneficiaries and successors of the estate of the late Kwaku Mireku a Kwahu businessman. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants/ Appellants/Respondents (hereinafter Defendants) are the children of the late Abraham Narh Tetteh, the original owner of Plot No. D 774/3 Okaishie, Accra, (the subject matter in dispute,) who died in 1941. In November 1965,

the late Kwaku Mireku took a lease of the said land for a term of 32 years from Adjei Tetteh a son of the original owner. In accordance with the terms of the said lease agreement, the late Kwaku Mireku demolished existing structures on the land and constructed a three-storey building with stores for his own use which he named Mireku House; and a two storey-house for the use of the lessor. The definite term of the lease was for 32 years without any renewal clause.

By a letter dated 15 May 1996, the Defendants had their solicitor give notice to the Plaintiffs of the expiry of the lease on 31 October 1997 and their intention to recover possession of the Mireku House by 1 November 1997. The Plaintiffs by a letter dated 26 November 1996 acknowledged receipt of the letter and pleaded for a new lease of 50 years which the Defendants rejected.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs on 7 August 1997 instituted an action before the High Court Accra claiming the following reliefs:

“An order varying the terms of a lease dated 2 October 1965 between Adjei Tetteh and Kwaku Mireku on grounds of unconscionability; or

In the alternative, a declaration that Plaintiffs are statutory tenants

Any further order(s) or relief(s) as the Court may deem fit.”

In their statement of claim the Plaintiffs averred that they have had cordial relationship with the defendants and also created goodwill for their business in the area. That in 1984/85 there was a fire outbreak that destroyed a substantial part of the building. The building was not only repaired and refurbished but a fourth floor was added to it to the knowledge of the defendants. The Plaintiffs claimed per Paragraph 12 of their statement of claim that:

“Paragraph 12: “The Plaintiffs aver that it will be unconscionable to terminate the lease and seek relief under section 18 of the Conveyancing Decree, (NRCD 175).

PARTICULARS OF UNCONSCIONABILITY

The lease agreement did not contain any covenant or term against renewal and therefore entitled the le