Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING
Plaintiffs/Applicants seeks by this application which is planked on Order 25 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 an order of the court for the Registrar of the court to enter property No. 6 & 7 Independence Avenue, Accra, being the res litiga for which Applicants writ seeks a number of reliefs including recovery of possession, recovery of rent arrears, mesne profit, damages for breach of contract etc. Applicants pray for further orders for the inspection of the books of the tenants put in occupation by the 1st Defendant/Respondent and for an order for the preservation of rent payable by the tenants pending the final determination of the suit.
The basis for such prayers before the court is founded on the reasons distilled in a 26 paragraph affidavit and a supplementary affidavit deposed to by Frank Beechem, a member of the Board of
Trustees of the 4th Applicant and which can be summarized as follows:
That the 1st to 3rd Applicants, being Trustees of the 4th Applicant, who is the beneficial owner of Plot No 6 and 7, Independence Avenue as a result of the Will of Edward Osei Boakye (deceased) which devise was upheld in court decisions and a consent judgment of the Supreme Court. That flowing from the consent judgment, 1st Defendant/Respondent was granted a sublease of the property on the 29th of April, 2016 for a period of fifteen years with $35,000 as rent per month payable annually in advance. That subsequently 1st Respondent placed tenants in occupation including 3rd and 4th Respondents with 2nd Respondent being a company under the control and direction of 1st Respondent. Applicants further claim that with the exception of the initial rent which was paid in
2014, the 1st Respondent has refused to pay rent from 1st May, 2016 to 30th April, 2019 in the sum of $1,260,000 which keep rising and that the refusal of 1st Respondent to pay rent, which he has attributed to a spurious excuse of the non-securement of a written consent by the Applicants from the Lands Commission to sub-let the property. That 1st Respondent’s claim that due to the non-citing of the written consent by the tenants they have refused to pay rent does not hold water and amounts to a breach of the agreement between them.
It is further claimed that 1st Respondent having submitted to judgment and voluntarily executed the sublease requiring him to pay rent or face eviction, the refusal of 1st Respondent to pay rent is frivolous and intended to overreach the Ap