MOHAMMED NASIRU vs. BABA IBRAHIM/OSAMUTU [2020]DLHC8913

Date	2020-06-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/1763/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC8913

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

JAMES OWURA-MENSAH ESQ. OF HAYIBIR

DJARBENG & CO NO. 37 ROYAL CASTLE ROAD TOP FLOOR

ADWOA YEBOA PLAZA KOKOMLEMLE ACCRA COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

JOSEPH KAPONDE ESQ. OF JOEKAP LAW CONSULT 4TH FLOOR REPUBLIC HOUSE ACCRA

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2020]DLHC8913
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MOHAMMED NASIRU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BABA IBRAHIM/OSAMUTU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES
OWURA-MENSAH, ESQ., OF HAYIBIR, DJARBENG &amp; CO, NO. 37, ROYAL CASTLE ROAD,
TOP FLOOR, ADWOA YEBOA PLAZA, KOKOMLEMLE, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JOSEPH
KAPONDE ESQ., OF JOEKAP LAW CONSULT, 4TH FLOOR, REPUBLIC HOUSE,
ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Adjabeng
District Court presided over by His Worship James Kojoh Botah where the learned
Magistrate struck out the action of the Plaintiff/Appellant (herein after
referred to “Appellant”) on the grounds of lack of capacity in the Appellant to
initiate the suit. <o:p></o:p>Briefly, the facts
of the case as can be gleaned from the Record of Appeal are that the Appellant
had, per a Summons instituted an action against the Defendants/Respondents
(hereinafter referred to as the “Respondents”) against whom he had earlier
submitted a complaint to the Chief Rent Officer in accordance with the Regulations 38(2) of the Rent Regulations
1964, for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ejectment of the Defendant from the premises
forthwith for complainant’s use<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Make such orders as to costs or in connection with
the proceedings.<o:p></o:p>The Chief Rent Officer had ordered Respondents to quit
the premises in dispute by March 13, 2018, having accepted the plea of the
Respondents to be given three (3) months to organise themselves to quit. Therefore,
when by the said date the Respondents had failed to heed the order, the Chief
Rent Officer referred the matter to the Rent Magistrate under section 17(1) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act
220) for an effective order to issue for the reliefs sought by the Applicant.
<o:p></o:p>When the case was brought before the Rent
Magistrate, the learned magistrate opted to try the case de novo by taking
evidence because the Respondents stated they were not liable when the
recommendation of the Rent Officer was read to them. The learned Magistrate
asked the Respondents to file their statement of defence and proceeded to try
the case. In the course of cross-examining the Appellant, the issue of his capacity
came up. Counsel for the Respondents at that point opted to not proceed with
the trial but filed a motion to dismiss the suit on grounds of capacity.&nbsp; Even though the application was opposed by
the Appellant, same was granted by the Magistrate. In coming to his decision,
the Magistrate held that the Appellant in opposing the application failed to
exhibit any tenancy agreement he had executed with the Respondents or any other
evidence to establish his ownership of the property in question since the
Respondents were naming another person as their landlord. The court stated as
follows in the Ruling:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“To
sum up, the defendants have challenged the capacity of the plaintiff to bring
them to court. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that he has such
capacity. His evidence-in-chief did not sufficiently prove that he is the
landlord of the defendants and therefore has the legal rights to proceed
against them. Again, the submissions made by his counsel in response to the
application did not prove the capacity of the plaintiff as the landlord of the
defendants.<o:p></o:p>