NAAS ARTHUR BOATENG (MS) v. MADAM ESTHER FREMAN BOATENG & ANOTHER
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADUAMA OSEI, JA (PRESIDING)
- DZAMEFE, JA
- M. WELBOURNE, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Ghana Court of Appeal decision arises from a landlord–tenant dispute between Naas Arthur Boateng, operator of “Bar Naas” in Nhyiaeso, Kumasi, and the defendants who work at True Vine Lodge/Hotel and reside nearby. Boateng alleged repeated interference with her business and sought declarations, damages, and injunctions, while the defendants denied a written agreement, alleged an oral tenancy with unpaid rent balance, accused her of creating unsanitary conditions and subletting to a shawarma vendor, and counterclaimed to terminate the tenancy. While the substantive suit was pending, the defendants moved to have Boateng vacate the storeroom and frontage. The High Court granted the motion, finding the tenancy expired and rent untendered. On appeal, the Court of Appeal focused on whether respondent’s counsel had a valid annual solicitor’s licence; finding he did not, it held the motion was a nullity and that the High Court erred to entertain it. The appeal was allowed without addressing other grounds.
DZAMEFE, JA
The Plaintiff/Appellants hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff is a Ghanaian who operates a bar and restaurant services under the name and style of “Bar Naas” at Nhyiaeso Kumasi. The Defendant/Respondents also live in Kumasi and work at the True Vine Lodge/Hotel.
The plaintiff said by a Landlord-Tenant Agreement the 1st defendant allowed her to take the subject premises for use as a commercial bar and restaurant effective 1st January 2007. The said premises include an open space and a store room (shop) and is located at plot 15A Block ‘F’. Nhyiaeso, Kumasi. The plaintiff averred further that she has fully paid the agreed rent advance of Gh¢8000 to the 1st defendant and has the option to renew on fresh terms should the tenancy expire. She said even though the agreement guaranteed her quiet possession and enjoyment of the premises, the 1st defendant and her assigns have repeatedly subjected her activities at the premises with “subtle as well as violent interruptions on various occasions, for no justifiable reason.”For example, on one occasion the 1st defendant drove her vehicle carelessly without due care and attention into and through the plaintiff’s business area causing various degrees of damage to her properties and thereby disrupted all business activities for a considerable length of time.
On one occasion the 1st defendant without any notice to the plaintiffunilaterally and violently cut down a tree that provides shade to her customers. The customers had to run for safety abandoning their drinks and meals.
Plaintiff averred further that recently 2nd defendant who is 1stdefendant’s son broke down sections of the wooden structure of the plaintiff’s business yard and also locking up plaintiff’s shop which forms part and parcel of the subject premise where she conducts her ‘bar’ service activities and same remains under lock and key at the behest of the defendants.
Plaintiff claims that though her interest and rights in the subject premise is subsisting, the defendant’s will not grant her the peace and quietness to conduct her business as 1st defendant undertook to do unless this court restrains them from interfering or interrupting with her business activities.
The plaintiff says thatthe defendant’s actions have caused her to loose revenue, customers, business orders and opportunities yet the defendant’s will not compensate her adequately unless ordered todo so bythe court. Plaintiffcontends she is entitled to be compensated with her