REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW vs. ADOMA BOATENG BEATRICE AND 3 OTHERS

The appellant, claiming to be owner/landlord of House No. D10/2, Central Area, Sunyani, commenced proceedings in the High Court by originating motion under Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 and article 33 of the 1992 Constitution, seeking ejectment of the respondents from rooms they occupied in his property. He alleged that the respondents had refused to pay rent and refused to recognise him as landlord, and contended that this amounted to interference with his fundamental human rights under article 18(1) and (2) of the Constitution. This appears from the judgment where the court stated that the appellant sought “protection of his fundamental human rights under Article 18(1) and (2) ... to own property and not be subjected to interference,” and that the respondents were occupying rooms in his property, had refused to pay rent, and had refused to recognise him as landlord.

TORKORNOO, J. A: Articles 18 and 33 of the 1992 Constitution provide: 18 (1) Every person has the right to own property either alone or inassociation with others. (2) No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others. 33 (1) Where a person alleges that a provision of this Constitution on the fundamental human rights and freedoms has been, or is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action that is lawfully available, that person may apply to the High Court for redress. The Plaintiff/Applicant/Appellant filed a motion ‘under Order 67 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules.....