LAVA LIMITED v. VANOS ENTERPRISE & 9 ORS.

AKOTO-BAMFO J.A The plaintiff respondent commenced an action

against the defendants appellants then numbering 11 for these reliefs;

(1) mesne profits from the dates of expiry of the tenancy agreements to

date of recovery of possession.

(2) Recovery of possession.

(3) Damages for trespass against the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th

defendants.

In the accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that it

was a limited liability company engaged in retail trade; it owned the

property known as SERI / SAT, the subject matter of the dispute by

virtue of a sale transaction which was reduced into writing. According

to the plaintiff it paid a total sum of $235,000 to Unilever, the

previous owner. Even though Unilever served notices on the

defendants namely 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th defendants who were statutory

tenants, they remained in occupation and refused to submit their

tenancy agreements between them and Unilever to the plaintiff’s upon

request.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th

defendants were squatters; that when efforts at getting all the

defendants to surrender vacant possession failed; they were served

with notices to quit within 6 months. According to the plaintiff, it

required the premises to carry out a scheme of remodeling and

redevelopment.

The defendants resisted the plaintiff’s claim. The 2

nd,

4th ,5

th to 11th

defendants denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in

issue; according to them they were all sitting tenants who initially had

dealership agreements with G.B. Ollivant; and that when subsequently

business declined owing to the unfavourable and that when economic

conditions, they became ordinary tenants.

According to them even though they were served with notices to quit

by Unilever, they ignored same since they were in the process of

collectively negotiating for the purchase of the property.

They additionally ignored the letter requesting them to submit their

tenancy agreements to the plaintiff, since they did not recognize the

company as their landlord.

With regard to the 4th defendant it averred that it was offered a piece

of land and that the development thereon was at its own expense and

therefore it could not be described as a mere tenant.

It is the defendants’ case that since they were given very short notices

of the sale, same was tainted with discrimination.

They mounted a counterclaim for a declaration that they were

stat