SHADRACK TETTEH LOMOKWEI v ANDREWS KATTAH THE CHRIST EMBASSY CHURCH

BY COURT:

The Plaintiff by his writ issued on 14th February 2007 claimed the following from the defendants.

1. An order appointing a valuer to assess the economic rent payable for the demised land from the 1st day of June 1970 to date.

2. An order that the 1st defendant pays to the Plaintiff the assessed rent.

3. Recovery of possession of the said demised land from the defendants

4. Mesne profits

5. Damages for breach of the terms of the said lease.

In the Statement of Claim that accompanied the writ, the Plaintiff pleaded that he is the administrator of the estate of Humphrey Djan Tetteh, the original lessor of the land in dispute and had instituted the action against 1st Defendant who claims to be the son of George Kofi Kattah (deceased) the lessee of the land the subject matter of dispute and the person currently in possession of the land and the 2nd Defendant, who also occupies part of the land, at the instance of the defendant. The Plaintiff pleaded that on 5th September 1969, the late Humphrey Djan Tetteh (herein after referred to as the ‘lessors’) leased the land in dispute to George Kofi Kattah (hereinafter referred to as the lessee) for a term of 10years certain, with on option for renewal for a further 10 years effective from 1st June 1969. According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant has not renewed the lease, yet he occupies it and has not been paying rent but been collecting rent from the 2nd Defendant.

Even though the 2nd Defendant entered appearance, no defence was filed. The 1st Defendant however entered appearance and by his amended Statement of defence filed on 23rd April 208, denied that the land in dispute forms part of the estate of the lessor. He however admitted that he is in occupation of the land in dispute as the son and successor to the lessee. The defendant also challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to commence this action. The defendant pleaded further that when the lease expired, in 1979, the option for renewal was exercised, and rent was paid over the period, with the last payment made in 1991. The defendant also pleaded that they opted to purchase the land before the expiration of ten years in 1989. According to the defendant, the lessors dragged their feet on the sum to be paid for the purchase since 1991, and they did not also take any step to demand the purchase price until 2006. By this, the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff’s action is statute barred.

On 22nd July,