SAM JONAH v. LORD DUODU-KUMI,
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFORI-BOATENG, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- FORSTER, J.A.
- ESSILFIE-BONDZIE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Banking and Finance Law
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Forster, J.A., refused a tenant’s application for stay of execution pending appeal from a High Court summary judgment in favor of the new landlord, Mr. Sam Jonah. Unilever (Ghana) Limited had formally notified the tenant that House No. 109, East Cantonments, had been sold to Jonah and instructed attornment. The tenant later issued rent cheques and attorned tenancy to Jonah, thereby, in the Court’s view, becoming twice estopped from denying the landlord’s title: by the tenant’s general estoppel rule and by conduct. The tenant’s illegality challenge to U.S. dollar-denominated rent failed because the Bank of Ghana Notice postdated the 1996 payments and exempts authorized dealer banks; moreover, the bank converted the dollar amounts to cedis. Concluding no triable issues existed and that mere inpecuniosity does not warrant a stay, the Court refused the stay.
RULING
FOSTER, J.A.
In 1997, the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter called the Plaintiff) sued out a writ in the High Court, Accra against the Defendant as tenant claiming (as per amendment statement of claim dated 14th July, 1998):
(1) An order of ejectment from property No 109, East Cantonments, Accra.
(2) Rent arrears of the cedi equivalent of US $ 38,250
(3) Interest on the said sum from 1st July, 1996 to date of payment.
(4) Mense profits.
The Defendant duly entered appearance and resisted the claim. Essentially, the defendant denied that the plaintiff was his landlord and contended that the sale of the property by the previous owners to the plaintiff was a sham.
The trial High Court Judge on 30th January, 1998 granted plaintiff’s summons for Summary judgment, observing that”
“On the pleadings so far filed in the suit, it is my considered Opinion that the application should be granted”.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal and applied to the trial court for stay of execution and upon the refusal of the court to grant the application, the defendant repeated the application for stay of execution in this Court. The defendant in his affidavit in support of the application recounted plaintiff’s claim that:
“ (2)…he is the new owner of H/No 109, East Cantonments, Accra. Having purchased same from UNILEVER (Ghana) Limited, and sought an order for my ejection from the said house for non-payment of rent of $2,125.00 per mensem”.
Defendant then repeated the substance of his defence considered paragraph 3 that he:
(a) Challenged plaintiff’s alleged ownership of the house since he had failed to exhibit any registered Deed of Assignment/sale.
(b) That the rent payable to UNILEVER at all times material to this action was $1,500.00 per mensem and not $2,125.00 as claimed by plaintiff.
(c) Challenged the legality and enforceability billing of the agreement charging rent in US$ contrary to the applicable fiscal laws of the Bank of Ghana”
In the view of the defendant these averments, and as pleaded in his defence in the action, raised triable issues which the trial judge should have resolved by a trial and therefore he erred in entering summary judgment against the defendant.
The issues must be resolved by considering each separately.
As to the issues of ownership:
The defendant does not contend that he and not the plaintiff is the owner of the property. He does not also dispute that the property was owned by UNILEVER [GHANA] Limited. It is