Appeal Court, 4th April, 1939. Appeal from judgment of Divisional Court.

Validity of lease-Authority to execute lease by Deed-Holding out as agent-Lease for term of less than three years need not be under seal-Notice to quit.

The plaintiff had held out his son Dan Cole as his agent and Manager of his property in Accra. Dan Cole granted a lease of property to the defendant. -It was held in the Court below that the lease was invalid as the plaintiff's son had no authority to execute a lease by Deed. either under the Power of Attorney or as having being held out as his father's agent.

Held: Lease valid as it was for a term of less than three years and could be  made in writing and not under seal.    .

Held further: Defendant, having been allowed to enter and having paid all rent up to the date of the writ, was a yearly tenant and could not qe ejected without notice to quit.

Judgment of Court below reversed and plaintiff's action dismissed.

K. A. Bossman for Plaintiff.

A. G. Heward-Mills for Defendant.

The following joint judgment was delivered :-

WEBB, c.J., SIERRA LEONE, BUTLER LLOYD, AG. c.J., NIGERIA AND STROTHER-STEWART, J.

In the Court below this case was fought entirely on the issue whether the plaintiff's son had authority to execute a lease by Deed either under the Power of Attorney or by having been held out as his father's agent. Clearly the Power of Attorney did not authorise him to execute leases by Deed and equally clearly a power to execute a deed cannot arise by mere holding out.

But in this Court the point has been taken that the lease granted by Dan Cole to the defendant for a term of less than three years could be validly made by a writing not under seal. And this is clearly so. Equally clearly the evidence that the plaintiff had for years held out Dan Cole as his agent and the manager of his property in Accra was overwhelming: the plaintiff himself said so and the learned Chief Justice finds, at page 47 of the record, that the plaintiff expected him to let the properties whenever opportunity occurred.

We are of opinion that the lease was valid. Even if we are wrong in this, the defendant having been allowed to enter and having paid all the rent due up to the date of the writ, held as a yearly tenant-see Kugbe v. Union Trading Co. Divisional Court, 1926-29 at page 205-and so could not be ejected without notice to quit.