Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
December 24, 1978
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The applicants were ordered by an Accra district court to vacate house No. C 434/3, Asylum-Down, Accra occupied by them as tenants. They appealed against that order. Their application for stay of execution failed and was dismissed by the same court.
It is that same application which has been repeated in this court pending the final determination of the appeal. The sole ground for the application here is that there has been an appeal against the trial court’s order and that the appeal has a chance of success.
In answering the motion in this court, Mr. Nyamekye Baah who appeared for the applicants, contended that the Rent Control Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 138) is the operative law which governed the case and by section 5 thereof the first defendant witness erred by ordering the tenants to quit when the respondent had not complied with requirements concerning the issue and use of rent cards.
Miss Ampofo who appeared for the respondent was of the contrary view. Her contention was that P.N.D.C.L. 138 was inapplicable to the case but rather the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) was the operative law since under that law a rent card was not a sine qua non to the making of an order for ejectment, the appeal would not succeed and so the application should be dismissed.
Until the enactment of P.N.D.C.L. 138 as amended by the Rent Control (Amendment) Law, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 163) the main statute which regulated cases like the instant one concerning landlords and tenants were Act 220 and the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372). To the district courts the relevant sections of Act 372 were sections 32 (1) [p.132] and (11) and 37 (1) (d). There is no provision in P.N.D.C.L. 138 and P.N.D.C.L. 163 which repeals expressly or by even the remotest implication, the provisions of Acts 220 and 372 relating to cases of landlords and tenants. Mr. Nyamekye Baah referred to section 7 of P.N.D.C.L. 138 but the section does not, even inferentially, affect the existing provisions of Acts 220 and 372.
The undisputable impression one gathers from P.N.D.C.Ls 138 and 163 on the one hand and Acts 220 and 372 on the other hand, is that the legislature has now established two institutions with equal or co-ordinate jurisdiction to try cases of landlord and tenant. These are the rent office and the courts contained in Acts 220 and 372 on the one hand and the rent and housing committees of P.N.D.C.Ls 138 and 163 on the other hand. This intention of the legislature is explicit on the face of the statutes refe
AI Generated Summary
Tenants occupying house No. C 434/3, Asylum-Down, Accra, were ordered by the Accra district court to vacate and sought a stay of execution pending their appeal. Represented by Mr. Nyamekye Baah, they argued that the Rent Control Law, 1986 (PNDCL 138), governed the case and that non-compliance with rent-card requirements barred ejectment. The respondent, represented by Miss Ampofo, countered that the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), applied and rent cards were not a prerequisite. The court held that PNDCL 138 and its amendment did not repeal the Rent Act or Courts Act; rather, the statutes created co-ordinate jurisdictions between rent offices/courts and rent/housing committees/public tribunals. Having chosen the courts’ forum, the landlady’s case was governed by Acts 220 and 372. The court rejected the rent-card argument, found the appeal had no realistic prospect of success, dismissed the stay application, awarded a210,000 costs, and advised assigning the appeal to a different judge.