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
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2006
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, a limited liability company, sued multiple defendants who were either statutory tenants or squatters for mesne profits, recovery of possession, and damages for trespass on property the plaintiff purchased from Unilever. The defendants resisted the claim, arguing against the plaintiff’s ownership and claimed rights as statutory tenants. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding them mesne profits and ordering the recovery of possession. The defendants appealed on numerous grounds including the weight of evidence and failure to apply specific Rent Act provisions. The appellate court, however, upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that the sale did not breach any statutory provisions, mesne profits were rightly awarded, and the defendants had no superior interest beyond statutory tenancy, which they had violated by denying the plaintiff’s title.
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