MONTA v. PATERSON SIMONS (GHANA) LIMITED

JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.

The original plaintiff, Joseph Monta, was the sub-lessee of plot Nos. 3, 4, 24 and 25, Amakom Abrotia New Layout, Kumasi, for a term of 45 years commencing from 1 January, 1940. Having developed the plots, he in turn, on 14 December 1960, granted a sub-lease to the defendants, Paterson Simons (West Africa) Ltd., a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and now Paterson Simons (Ghana) Ltd., for a term of fifteen years from 1 December 1960, at a rent of 5,100 pounds per annum. A proviso gave the defendants the right to determine the sub-lease at the end of the first ten years of the term upon giving not less than six months' written notice. On 14 May, 1970 the defendants informed the plaintiff by letter that they intended to determine the sub-lease from 1 December 1970 and gave notice to other firms to which they had sub-let parts of the premises. All the sub-tenants, except one J. K. Agbemabiase, gave up possession to the plaintiff. The cost of effecting repairs to the premises, except the portion in the occupation of Agbemabiase, was agreed upon and settled by the defendants. The defendants also paid all rents up to 30 November 1970.

It was the case for the plaintiff that because the defendants failed to give him complete possession they remained his tenants after 30 November 1970 and he brought this action claiming an order for possession, rent or, in the alternative, mesne profits, up to the date of issue of writ, mesne profits from the date of issue of writ up to such time as they should deliver up complete possession, and damages for breaches of covenants. The present plaintiff was by an order of this court substituted for the original plaintiff who died on 3 June 1977.

[p.198]

It is the case for the defendants that they ceased to be sub-lessees from 1 December 1970 and are therefore not liable to pay rent. Any rent due must be paid by their sub-lessees who became statutory tenants of the plaintiff on holding over after the determination of the defendants' sub-lease. As to the claim for damages, the defendants deny the alleged breaches and, in the alternative, say that such breaches were waived by the plaintiff.

The general rule of law is that a tenant is required to deliver up possession to his landlord at the end of the term. If he fails to do so he will be liable for the continued use and occupation, and may also be required to pay damages if any has resulted from his failure to give up possession. In this regard