KOJO OPPONG AMOAKOHENE vs PRIMUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER OF EJECTION AGAINST DEFENDANT

The instant application is a Motion on Notice for an Order of ejection against Defendant Respondent on grounds of forfeiture for challenging the capacity of its landlord (Plaintiff Applicant).

The averments in the affidavit in support of the instant application are that Plaintiff Applicant entered into a contract of tenancy dated 2nd July, 2018 with Defendant Respondent. Plaintiff Applicant as landlord rented a three-storey commercial property to Defendant Respondent.

That Defendant Respondent’s refusal to pay rent due Plaintiff Applicant in breach of the tenancy is what gave rise to this suit in which Plaintiff Applicant claims amongst others a recovery of the rent owed.

However, Defendant Respondent filed three different applications, all aimed at challenging the capacity of Plaintiff Applicant as landlord. The motion for leave to amend their pre-trial checklist was dismissed by the Court. The Two (2) other Motions; a Motion to amend Defendant Respondent’s Statement of Defence filed on 9th May, 2022 and another motion to set aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on grounds of capacity filed on 31st May, 2023were withdrawn by Defendant Respondent without leave of the Court.

That the Contract of Tenancy between the parties under which Plaintiff Applicant yielded possession to Defendant Respondent forms the sole basis for Defendant Respondent’s continuous occupation of the property.

That by filing the three motions to challenge the capacity of its Landlord, Plaintiff Applicant herein, Defendant Respondent has immediately forfeited any rights to remain in the premises as he has by those motions forfeited any right to remain on the property as a tenant of Plaintiff Applicant.

Therefore, Defendant Respondent ought to be ordered by the Court to vacate the premises

In the Affidavit in Opposition to the instant applications, there are averments to the effect that the Tenancy Agreement entered into by the Parties is null and void because Plaintiff Applicant lacked the requisite capacity to enter into same.

That Plaintiff Applicant therefore cannot give what he does not have and so the issue of forfeiture for denial of Plaintiff Applicant’s capacity as Landlord does not arise at all.

That it is after the Court has had the benefit of a full trial that any such orders can be made. That the application ought to be dismissed with costs.

I have carefully listened to the submissions made by