SARA AMA KUMI v. STATE HOUSE COMPANY LTD.
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KUSI-APPIAH, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- HONYENUA, J.A.
- KWAKU GYAN, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Probate and Succession
- Contract Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, as a beneficiary of her late grandmother's estate, was evicted from the defendant's premises despite fulfilling tenant obligations. She sued for trespass and breach of covenant. The trial court dismissed her writ on the basis that she lacked the capacity to sue without letters of administration, and this decision was appealed. The main issue was the plaintiff's capacity to sue, with the court affirming that without legal capacity, the writ and proceedings are null. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling.
KUSI-APPIAH, J. A. :
The issue in this appeal is a very narrow one of whether the Circuit Court was right in setting aside the plaintiff’s writ upon an application by the defendant pursuant to the entry of conditional appearance without going into the merits of the case or without setting down the cause for hearing.
The facts of this case are that the plaintiff describes herself as a granddaughter of the late Madam Sarah Eshun Osrah.
At all material times since 1960’s Sarah Eshun Osrah had been the tenant of the defendant’s premises known as Flat No. 3 Block N at Kaneshie, Accra, the subject matter of this case.
The plaintiff avers that upon the death of her grandmother, Sarah Eshun Osrah, she became a beneficiary of her estate and consequently occupied the premises where her deceased grandmother held as a tenant of the defendant’s company.
According to the plaintiff, she had performed all the obligations required of a tenant to the defendant/respondent.
It is the case of the plaintiff that, by a letter dated 23rd June, 2009, the defendant requested her to give up possession of the premises on grounds of subletting which she denied in a reply to the defendant.
But that notwithstanding, the defendant or its agents purporting to enforce its rights under the law, ejected her from the premises.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s action constitutes trespass, illegal distress and breach of the covenant.
She maintained that she has suffered loss and damage as she and her family have been put to the expense of finding alternative accommodation in a guest house at an unbearable cost. The plaintiff therefore brought this action against the defendant as a beneficiary under the estate of the late Madam Eshun Osrah, claiming the following reliefs: “a. Damages for breach of covenant.
e. An order restraining the defendant whether personally or by any agent, employee or other person whosoever from committing any further breach of the covenant for quite enjoyment in the tenancy agreement.
f. An order that the defendant does pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim. ”Upon being served with the writ, the defendant, State House Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) entered conditional appearance and then moved the court to set aside the writ, because the defendant claims that, the plaintiff has no cause of action against it.
Besides, the defendant submitted that even if the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant, she l