JUDGMENT OF ANSAH-TWUM J.
The plaintiff-respondent (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) sued the defendant-appellant (hereafter referred to as the defendant) at the District Court Grade 1B, Sekondi, claiming:
“That the defendant is a tenant on the plaintiff’s premises and [that] he is in a habit of causing ‘nuisance.’ She claims further that the defendant has refused to cook in the kitchen and has been cooking on the verandah, and thereby keeping [p.786] the premises untidy. The plaintiff claims that the defendant owns a house at Effiakuma into which he could move. She therefore seeks an order for ejectment against the defendant. She wants the defendant ejected so as to avoid likely trouble in the future.”
The plaintiff complained in her evidence-in-chief that the defendant’s wife had been frying garri and drying cassava upstairs. This made her write letters, exhibits A and B to the defendant. In these letters, she complained against cooking by the defendant’s wife on the verandah instead of in the kitchen. She also complained against the attitude of the defendant’s wife against her as not being conducive. She further complained against frying garri and drying cassava in the premises by the defendant’s wife who did thereby keep the house untidy. The plaintiff also referred to exhibit C which is the defendant’s reply to her two letters: exhibits A and B. She states that she now finds it difficult to keep the defendant in her house as a tenant and therefore prayed for ejectment.
The defendant does not appear to have denied the nuisance complained of by the plaintiff in his reply contained in exhibit C. He rather complained at length about an alleged poor state of disrepair of the premises he was occupying and the need for renovation. The defendant did not deny cooking on the verandah, neither did he deny that his wife has been drying cassava in the house, or that his wife’s attitude towards the plaintiff was not conducive to good relationship between landlord and tenant. The defendant rather stated in no uncertain terms that his wife would continue to cook on the verandah until, as he put it, the kitchen was put in good order. The defendant stated further that he knows the plaintiff was bent on ejecting him from the house but warned that the plaintiff was not going to find it easy.
I think this provoked the present action which is in effect an action for ejectment based on nuisance committed in the premises by the defendant’s wife. It is signifi
