REPUBLIC v. RENT MAGISTRATE; EX PARTE KESSIE
March 4, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AMISSAH J. A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Administrative Law
March 4, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Kessie, a tenant in Accra, sought certiorari to quash a rent magistrate’s order that he either pay ¢154 in arrears and accruing rent by 30 June 1967 or vacate the premises. The order was issued after the rent officer recorded that Kessie owed five months’ rent and had defaulted on the first instalment of a two-part repayment plan; the officer recommended ejectment under s.17(1)(a). Kessie swore he received no notice of the magistrate’s proceedings and claimed, with landlord’s consent, to have made improvements that would reduce arrears; the landlord disputed this. Amissah JA held that under the Rent Act the magistrate must act judicially, observe district court procedure, cannot delegate the hearing to the rent officer, and must hear the tenant. The uncontradicted lack of notice vitiated the order, which was quashed.
JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
This application was brought by the applicant in this case to have an order of the rent magistrate quashed on the ground that he as defendant was denied an opportunity of being heard by the magistrate before he made his order. A second ground was filed but was not argued.
The order of the rent magistrate which is impugned is in the following form:
"Upon reading the findings of the rent officer, Accra, dated 2 June 1967, and upon being satisfied that the respondent herein has failed to settle and/or pay his rents due and owing, i.e. the sum of N¢154.00 as at 31 May 1967:
I do hereby order that the respondent herein (Kessie) do pay the said sum of N¢154.00 being arrears of rent due and owing and any subsequent rent or rents that may accrue on or before 30 June 1967 or quit the premises."
It will be noticed that the order was made giving the applicant alternative courses of action. But it would appear from his affidavit that he took it as an unqualified order to quit the premises. However that may be, the rent magistrate had made an order asking him to pay a certain sum or to quit the premises and the applicant's complaint was that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before the order was made. In his affidavit the applicant said that he had with the consent of the landlord made considerable improvements to the premises which would reduce the amount owing to some extent and if he had been heard the amount he would have been asked to pay would have been reduced. The landlord has before this court denied that the applicant had effected any improvements to the premises. However, this is not the forum for the determination of the truthfulness of the applicant's claim as to improvements. The sole issue before me is whether the magistrate's order was proper. In deciding this, it is necessary to go to the beginning of the proceedings under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), between the landlord and the applicant.
On 25 May 1967, according to the record made by the rent officer, there was a complaint laid by the landlord that the applicant, his tenant, owed him five months' rent in arrears, all to the total amount [p.209] of ¢154.00. The amount had been brought down to the end of May 1967. The landlord said the applicant had always been defaulting and he asked the officer to eject him. According to the record, the applicant admitted that he owed the stated amount for the period. The rent officer decided that the applicant should