|
______________________________________________________________
R U L I N G
______________________________________________________________
This ruling is in respect of an
application by the defendants
under the inherent jurisdiction
of this court for an order
granting them leave to take
vacant possession of their
warehouse situate at Adabraka
from the plaintiff.
In order to appreciate the
instant application it would be
important from the onset to
state the relevant leading to
the application. On 17th
February, 2010 the plaintiff
instituted an action against the
defendants claiming the
following reliefs:
1.
An order for payment of
compensation in the sum of
GH¢20,000.00 for pains and
suffering from injury suffered,
medical care and bills and loss
of earnings from non-use of his
right arm.
2.
An order for payment of arrears
of salaries due him since June,
2009.
3.
An order to restrain the
defendants from forcibly
evicting him until much
compensation is paid to him to
look from an alternative
accommodation.
4.
Cost.
In the accompanying statement of
claim the Plaintiff avers that
he is in the employment of the
defendants as a security man and
currently at post at their
warehouse at Adabraka. As a
result of his employment he
lives in the said warehouse with
his family and has since been
there to date.
The plaintiff avers further that
in July 1998 the plaintiff got
injured in the course of his
employment and was hospitalized
at Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital
for six (6) months but the
defendants refused to visit him
nor pay his hospital bill. His
right arm deformed as a result
of the injuries. When he
returned to work eventually he
demanded for compensation for
the injury but the defendants
ignored him. He however
continued in the employment of
the defendants and receiving
salary until in June 2009 when
the 2nd defendant
told him verbally that his
services would no longer be
needed and asked him to vacate
from the premises with his
family.
In their affidavit in support of
the instant application the
defendants deny that the
plaintiff has ever been their
employee. They state that the
plaintiff was allowed to stay in
the warehouse out of compassion
but they now need vacant
possession of the warehouse for
renovation for their business.
The plaintiff opposes the
application and state that the
defendants did not counterclaim
from recovery of possession nor
raise it in the directions
filed. The plaintiff thus
contends that the instant
application is a way of passing
the back door to ask for a
relief which they never asked
for.
Arguing the application, Counsel
for the defendants refer to
section 17(1) of the Rent Act,
1963 (Act 220) and submits that
where premises is let as part of
employment when that employment
ceases the tenancy immediately
comes to as end and the landlord
is within his right to recover
the property form the tenant.
Since the plaintiff ceases to be
defendants’ employee, the
defendants are entitled to
recover possession.
I agree with Counsel for the
defendants on the exposition of
the law. However they have the
opportunity to prosecute their
right to recover possession by
way of a counterclaim so that
the court would examine both
cases and take a decision on it
particularly so when the
plaintiff claims an order to
restrain them from ejecting him
before paying him compensation.
If the instant application is
granted it would be prejudicial
to the plaintiff’s claim. The
defendants’ instant application
therefore lacks merit and it is
hereby dismissed.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
*aq* |
