VINCENT CUDJOE & ORS VS PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT LTD

There are two main issues for determination in this case namely;

1. Whether or not the deconfiscation of the building, the subject matter of this suit by the State to the estate of the late Dr. Emmanuel Ayeh Kumi was lawful and,

2. Whether or not the plaintiffs are bound by the lease agreement between the defendant and the Ghana Tourist Development Board.

For the purpose of this judgement, the facts giving rise to this action are not complicated.

Pursuant to the Forfeiture of Assets and Disqualification (Ayeh-Kumi and WMQ Halm)Decree 1979, AFRLD 54 properties belonging to Dr. Emmanuel Ayeh-Kumi including the Caprice Hotel and Casino were confiscated to the State in 1979. Subsequent to the acquisition, the Government of Ghana (GoG) under the AFRC directed that the Ghana Tourist Development Company (here after GTDC) take over the operations of the Caprice Hotel and Casino and the buildings in dispute.

The GOG however, in a letter dated 15th December, 2008 pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Confiscated Assets (Removal of Doubt) Law 1993, section 29(3) of the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992 and Section 8(c) of the Interpretation Act, 1960 (CA4) and in the spirit of National Reconciliation, de-confiscated the properties belonging to the late Dr. Ayeh-Kumi including the disputed properties.

The GOG through a Deed of Transfer dated 5th January 2009 transferred the properties to the estate of Dr. Ayeh-Kumi.

At the time the properties were de-confiscated they were being used and operated by the defendant by virtue of a 30 year lease at a monthly rent of US$1, 500. 00 between the defendant and the GTDC.

The lease commenced from 1st January, 1996. The plaintiffs maintain that with the deconfiscation, the properties have reverted to the estate of Dr. Ayeh-Kumi and are not bound by the lease agreement between the defendant and the GTDC.

Despite the foregoing, the defendant persistently refused to recognise the legal right of the plaintiffs to the disputed properties as the administrators of the estate of the late Dr. Ayeh-Kumi.

They would not attorn tenancy, neither would they yield vacant possession thereof to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs referred the matter to the Rent Officer and subsequently applied to the Rent Magistrate for an order to enforce the recommendations of the Rent Officer namely recovery of rent arrears, eviction from the premises and costs.

During the pendency of the application before the Ren