Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
On the 6th August 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant seeking
the following reliefs;
i. General damages for breach of covenant stipulation contained in the lease
agreement dated 1st January 1998.
ii. An order that the plaintiff re-enters the demised property.
EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GHANA V. SUSTAINABLE END OF HUNGER FOUNDATION
iii. An order for the payment of GH¢1,800.00 being the cedi equivalent of $150.00 per
year of rent arrears from 2010 to date.
iv. Further or other reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit.
Upon service of the writ on the defendant, an appearance was lodged on its behalf on the
16/12/2015 and, followed up by a defence which contained a counter-claim dated the
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE
The plaintiff is a religious body registered under the Religious Body Act, 1989 PNDC Law
221, known as Evangelical Presbyterian Church Ghana, with its branches throughout the
Republic of Ghana. The present dispute is in respect of a property belonging to its Peki
Blengo branch located in the South Dayi District.
In its accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that, it has a large track of
land at Peki-Blengo on which it established a Parish thereon since 1847; which is within
the church’s Western presbytery of the plaintiff church.
Plaintiff described the defendant as a Non-Governmental Organisation having its
registered office at Madina – Accra.
That plaintiff acting through its District Pastor, Peki Blengo branch sometime in January
1998, the church granted a lease of its property at the Peki-Blengo made up of;
1. A six single storey room made up of Home Science block.
2. Headmaster’s Bungalow.
3. Dining Hall
4. Kitchen and
5. Two Girls’ Dormitories; to the defendant for a term of 25 years to establish a
Vocational Training Centre known as African Women Entrepreneurial (AWETC).
That the purpose was for training of local women and women from other places.
Plaintiff avers that, the lease agreement between the parties was crystal clear on the
purpose for which the facility was let to the defendant. In paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the
statement of claim, plaintiff reproduce the salient points from the agreement, that the
facility was to be used as a vocational training Centre for women. The lessee covenanted
that if any other covenant contained in the agreement shall not be observed, it shall be
lawful for the Lessor to re-enter upon the demised premises or any part there