MADAM MERCY KWAKU v. GABRIEL MENSAH AHIABLE & ANOTHER

JUDGMENT

AYEBI J.A.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Ho High Court dated 14th June 2007. The plaintiff/respondent is the tenant of defendant/appellant whiles the co-defendant/appellant is the alleged purchaser of the subject-matter of the tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant. For ease of reference in this judgment I will refer to plaintiff/respondent simply as plaintiff, defendant/appellant as defendant and co-defendant/appellant as co-defendant.

The subject-matter of the suit is H/No. ASI-B357 with land situate and lying at Gbedekope, Teshie-Aflao in the Ketu South District. It is owned by the defendant who himself resides at Dzelukope-Lormnavakope in the Keta District. Plaintiff trades in mainly foam mattresses and such products.

In early 1997, the plaintiff saw an uncompleted building consisting of a store and a single room. She desired it for her business. She traced the defendant whom she got to know as the owner to his place of residence.

Defendant agreed to let the structure to the plaintiff if she was ready to complete it herself and the cost of completion is used to off set the monthly rent. Plaintiff agreed to the proposal and there and then defendant took an advance of ¢400,000.00 from her.

On completion, the parties entered into a tenancy agreement executed on 1st April 1997 – Exhibit A. They agreed on a monthly rent of ¢20,000.00 (GH¢2.00) for a term of ten (10) years. In clause 6 of Exhibit A, it was agreed that plaintiff shall not erect any structure or make any alteration to the store and the single room.

In the fifth year of the tenancy, the defendant petitioned the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Keta District for recovery of possession on the grounds that plaintiff had breached clause 6 of the tenancy agreement. That apart, she had not paid rent for the past five years (letter attached to Exhibit C refers).

At the hearing of defendant’s petition, the parties agreed to a mediation. At the end of the day, the defendant secured a variation of the monthly rent from ¢20,000.00 (GH¢2.00) to ¢40,000.00 (GH¢4.00) as from June to 1st May 2007, Exhibit F, refers.

However on 17/10/2002, defendant served on the plaintiff a letter dated 10/10/02 a three-months notice to quit because he had sold the property – Exhibit G refers. Startled by the notice, plaintiff contacted CHRAJ, Keta to find out what was happening.

The CHRAJ officials accompanied the plaintiff and her husband (PW2) to the defen