|
JUDGMENT
OMARI-SASU:
The facts which
prompted the present action in the Court below are
simple and are not generally in dispute between the
parties and may be stated as follows:—
The
Plaintiff-Respondent had been invited by one E.Q.
Quartey (now deceased) to come and live in House No.
H.211/19, Tema.
The said late E.Q.
Quartey was the tenant and the first Defendants (T.D.C.)
were the landlords. Certain moneys possed from the
Plaintiff-Respondent to the late Quartey which tendered
to show that the premises had been sublet to the
Plaintiff-Respondent but as the said transactions
offended against the Rent Act — Act 220 and were done
without the knowledge and consent of First Defendants
those acts never enured to the benefit of
Plaintiff-Respondent.
The second
Defendant-Appellant, prior to the arrival of
Plaintiff-Respondent had been put in the kitchen of the
premises of the said late E.Q. Quartey and he lived
there at rent free, for he performed household services
for the said Quartey who was ailing.
In time, the said E.Q.
Quartey died and the record shows that the tenancy of
the premises was still in the name of the said E.Q.
Quartey.
The
plaintiff-Respondent then formally applied to the 1st
Defendants-Appellants to be made tenant of the said
premises and the 2nd Defendant on hearing this also went
and saw an official of the 1st Defendants-Appellants who
in time summoned both parties to appear and after the
meeting 1st Defendants-Appellants gave the tenancy of
the premises to 2nd Defendant-Appellant.
Aggrieved by this act,
the Plaintiff-Respondent sued the Defendants-Appellants
in the High Court. After the trial, judgment was entered
by the Tema High Court for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
Both Defendants have
appealed against the decision of the Tema High Court and
their main ground is that the judgment is against the
weight of evidence.
I support the judgment
of the Court below that Plaintiff-Respondent should have
been given the tenancy by the 1st Defendants-Appellants
though not for the reasons assigned by the learned trial
judge who wrongfully described the Plaintiff-Respondent
as a statutory tenant. He is not.
It is trite law that a
lease is a contract by which the right to the exclusive
possession of land is granted by the landlord as lessor
to the tenant or lessee for a consideration which is
usually money.
This being so, it is
usually necessary for a would-be tenant to apply to a
landlord for the tenancy.
The record of
proceedings from the Court below shows that whereas
Plaintiff-Respondent formally applied for the tenancy,
the 2nd Defendant is not shown to have done same.
The
Plaintiff-Respondent, then being the one who applied for
the tenancy should have been granted same and not the
one who did not make any formal application for the
tenancy.
On the other hand there
should have been satisfactory reasons explaining why 1st
Defendants-Appellants granted the tenancy to 2nd
Defendant who never made formal application for the
tenancy but to such reasons were offered.
This means
Plaintiff-Respondent should be the tenant of the 1st
Defendants-Appellants and I so order.
The appeal accordingly
fails.
K. OMARI-SASU
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
J. ANSAH:
I agree.
J. ANSAH
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
S. K. ASIAMAH:
I also agree.
S.K. ASIAMAH
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
COUNSEL
REX LAMPTEY FOR
RESPONDENT
J. L. NEIZER FOR 1ST
APPELLANT
CHARITY ASAMOAH HOLDING
RICHARD AKPONAVIE FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ATWERE RIVER ESTATES v.
KWASHIE OPEI (SUB. BY NAI KOFI PARBI) [9/5/2002]CA/NO.
66/2000. |
