WOODE v. DADSON

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

This is an application by the defendant for a stay of execution pending appeal in the High Court from the judgment of the Rent Magistrate, Accra New Town.

On 4 December 1975, the rent magistrate sitting at Accra New Town gave judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of ¢10,250.00 against the defendant and also made an order of ejectment against him. According to the affidavit of the defendant an appeal has been lodged against the judgment. In the application of the defendant a copy of the judgment has not been exhibited and it is almost impossible for this court to say whether the rent magistrate's decision can be shown to be wrong and that the appeal is likely to succeed.

It is, however, agreed on both sides that the case originated in proceedings before the rent officer who took evidence and then sent the proceedings with his recommendations to the rent magistrate. There is no doubt that the rent magistrate can only determine the matter after considering the proceedings before the rent officer, and giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard on the findings of fact made by the rent officer. The defendant's contention as revealed on his affidavit is that he had no opportunity to state his case before the rent magistrate. His own affidavit shows however that when the case came before the rent magistrate he pleaded for an adjournment in order to obtain the services of counsel, and the rent magistrate obliged him. On the adjourned date his counsel wrote to the rent magistrate asking that the case should be stood down or adjourned and this the rent magistrate refused. He proceeded to hear the case. I myself do not see anything wrong in the rent magistrate refusing to stand the case down or adjourn it especially when he had acceded to the defendant's request for adjournment on the previous occasion. It is becoming the practice of some legal practitioners to write letters to the court asking for adjournment or requesting it to stand cases down, to suit their own convenience. The courts, whether the High Court or a district court, must do their work and legal practitioners cannot, in my view, dictate the pace at which the courts should work.

It is apparent from the defendant's affidavit that he was in court on the two occasions that his case came on and this clearly evidences the fact that he was notified of the proceedings before the rent magistrate and there was therefore compliance with regulation 40 of the Rent Regulations, 1964