SALLOUM v. LEDLUM

JUDGMENT OF AGYEPONG J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court Grade I D., Accra, constituted by his worship Mr. S. A. Afful. The district court dismissed the claim of the appellant for ¢701.20 arrears of rent and an order of ejectment for failure to pay rent.

The appellant is the landlord of house No. C. 10/2 Adabraka, Accra, and the respondent is the appellant's tenant occupying the appellant's shop. In September 1974 both the landlord and the tenant agreed to submit to the rent officer the assessment of rent of that shop. On 18 September 1974, the rent officer fixed the rent at ¢139.40 and served his assessment on both the landlord and the tenant. Before then, the tenant had written exhibit A to the rent officer authorising the rent officer to carry on the assessment in her absence, and informing the rent officer that she would accept the assessment of the rent officer. In spite of exhibit A the tenant refused to accept the assessment of the rent officer and used various modes of blackmail to get the landlord not to enforce the recoverable rent of ¢139.40 assessed by the rent officer.

The tenant admitted writing exhibit A but contended that the assessed rent of ¢139.40 was unreasonable and she refused to pay it. She admitted making advances to the Regional Office, Accra, which also referred the matter to the Attorney-General's Department. The Attorney- General's Department surprisingly also played a role in the intimidation of the landlord. Mr. Nyanor learned counsel for the landlord, filed five original grounds of appeal, but abandoned ground three. At the beginning of the hearing of the appeal, I asked Mr. Okudzeto, learned counsel for the respondent, if he could refer me to any enactment which conferred on the [p.247] army and the Attorney-General's Department jurisdiction in assessment of recoverable rent. Mr. Okudzeto honourably conceded that he knew of none.

The landlord's first ground of appeal was that the learned district magistrate erred in law by holding that the landlord be penalised for the failure of the rent officer to reply in time to a letter written by the office of the Attorney-General. This letter exhibit G challenged the assessment of the rent officer. In view of the concession of Mr. Okudzeto that the Attorney-General’s Department had no jurisdiction in the assessment of recoverable rent, I think this ground of appeal must be sustained.

The second ground of appeal was that the learned magistrate erred in l