LAVA LIMITED v. VANOS ENTERPRISE & 9 ORS.
2006
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.A. [PRESIDING]
- TWENEBOA KODUA, J.A.
- ANIN YEBOAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2006
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal concerns Lava Ltd., a retail company that bought the SERI/SAT property in Central Accra from Unilever for US$235,000 under a written sale. Unilever had earlier served notices to quit on statutory tenants and alleged squatters occupying the shops; several occupants stayed on and refused to submit tenancy agreements or to recognize Lava Ltd. as their new landlord. At trial, defendants claimed sitting or statutory tenancy status linked to historic dealership arrangements with G.B. Ollivant, asserted superior interests (particularly the 4th defendant under Exhibit 22), and alleged discrimination, a right of first option to purchase, and estoppel based on pending litigation. Appau J awarded mesne profits and recovery of possession. On appeal, Akoto-Bamfo J.A. (presiding) held that Exhibit 22 reflected an ordinary tenancy, the Rent Act provisions were inapplicable and bound by prior interlocutory ruling, denial of landlord’s title triggered forfeiture, and mesne profits were proper. Anin Yeboah, J.A. concurred, noting appellants obstructed title registration and could not benefit from their own wrong. The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and affirmed recovery of possession.
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