KHI GHANA 01 LTD vs BEN NONTERAH

By a writ of summons filed 16/8/13, the plaintiff claims from the defendant:

i. An order for the recovery of all rent arrears due and owed plaintiff by the defendant until June 1, 2013 in the sum of USD 24, 581. 44 or its cedi equivalent.

ii. Interest on the said sum of USD24, 581. 44 or its cedi equivalent from June 1, 2013 till date of final payment.

iii. An order for the recovery of an amount of USD1, 348. 00 or its cedi equivalent, being arrears of Common Area Management [CAM] fees for the period September 2012 to June 2013. iv.

iv. Interest on the said sum of USD1, 348. 00 or its cedi equivalent from June 1, 2013 till date of final payment.

v. An order for the recovery of electricity charges owed plaintiff by the defendant in the sum of GHC1, 556. 42

vi. Interest on the said sum of GHC1, 556. 42 till date of final payment.

General damages for breach of the Tenancy Agreement.

1/11/13 the defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaimed for

a. An order directed at the plaintiff to release defendants thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty USD[USD 13, 750. 00] being the extra money used by the defendant in putting the premises into tenantable condition

b. An order directed at the plaintiff to release defendants two thousand four hundred and thirty two USD [USD2, 432. 00] being security deposit to the defendant.

c. Interest on the said amounts.

d. Damages for breach of contract.

e. Costs including solicitors cost f. Any order[s] as this court may deem fit.

After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, this matter came up for trial on the following issues:

1. Whether or not the parties executed a deed of variation amending the terms of the tenancy agreement.

2. Whether or not the defendant breached the terms of the tenancy agreement executed on April 11, 2011.

3. Whether or not the premises was let to the defendant on an ‘as is’ basis after inspection of same by the defendant. [defendants’ issue (d)]

4. Whether or not plaintiff made promises to the defendant and the effect of such promises if any on the parties [ defendants’ issues (a) and (b)]

5. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to its claim. [ defendants’ issues (e), (f)and (g)6. Whether or not the defendant is entitled to his counterclaim It is the plaintiffs case that it leased out shop space known as Unit 2 to the defendant herein in a lease dated April 11, 2011. It is further the plaintiffs’ case that among others in the said lease the defendant covena