Darko v Atala Limited (GJ/1086/2022) [2025] GHAHC 120 (28 February 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 12) ACCRA, HELD ON THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AYITEY ARMAH- TETTEH SUIT NO GJ/1086/2022 E.O. DARKO - PLAINTIFF VRS ATALA LIMITED - DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTIES: - PLAINTIFF PRESENT - DEFENDANT ABSENT COUNSEL: - KENNETH AMPAW ESQ., FOR ADJEI LARTEY ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT MATHIAS SAMWINE ESQ., FOR THE DEFENDANT PRESENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION Page 1 of 20 [1] Plaintiff, sometime in 1995, obtained a lease of 10 years from one Augustine Addai in respect of two (2) shops at Nyamekye Junction Accra for his printing business. The plaintiff claims that on 15 March 1997, he obtained a further 20-year lease of the same property from the said Augustine Addai, the owner of the property, which claim Augustine Addai denies. The Defendant subsequently purchased the whole building, including the two shops and intended to remodel the whole property. He asked the Plaintiff to vacate because his lease of 10 years had expired and also needed to remodel the property. The plaintiff says his total lease of 30 years will expire in June 2025, and the defendant bought the property subject to the Plaintiff’s leasehold interest. The fundamental issue that arises in this case is did the Plaintiff acquired a further 20 year leasehold interest of the property from Augustine Addai. Pleadings of Plaintiffs. [2] The Plaintiff claims he is the Managing Director of Kedo Printing Press Limited. That sometime in 1995, he obtained a lease of 10 years of two stores at Nyamekye Junction from Augustine Addai, the owner of the property. [3] According to Plaintiff, on 15 March 1997, he obtained a further 20-year lease of the two stores from the said Augustine Addai. However, on 17 March 2015, he received a letter from Lawyers for the Defendant alleging that it had acquired the property and Defendant had received requests from neighbouring property owners and the District Assembly over the few years on the need to free up the access road. [4] According to Plaintiff, Defendants also stated that they were going to carry out renovation and remodelling works on the property. Page 2 of 20 [5] Plaintiff avers that he made his lawyers respond to the letter and maintained that he has a continuous lease which expires in 2025 and therefore did not see any justification for the Defendant to ask him to give vacant possession of the premises. [6] The Plaintiff contends that the fact that the Defendant had acquired ultimate interest in the property from Agustine Addai and Madam Akuvi Dzamesi such interest is subject to the his overriding equitable interest. [7] The Plaintiff maintains that until his equitable interest in the property has elapse, the Defendant has no right or legal authority to seek to evict or remodel or do anything in the said property that is likely to affect his equitable interest. [8] The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant as follows: a. A declaration that any interest acquired by Defendant in the property is subject to the equitable right of Plaintiff in the property which extends to 2025. b. An order restraining the Defendant, his agents or assigns from doing anything or carrying out any renovation or remodelling or construction and demolishing which is likely to affect the interest or business of Plaintiff on the premises. c. A declaration that Plaintiff has an equitable interest in the property so far as his leasehold subsists. PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT [9] According to Defendant, Augustine Addai, who is a former tenant of the store room in which Plaintiff operates from, granted a sub-tenancy of one storeroom to Plaintiff for ten years certain with effect from June 1995 to June 2005 which tenancy has since expired. [10] According to Defendants, although the said Agustine Addai subsequently made a proposal to Plaintiff to extend the tenancy agreement, the said proposal was not agreed Page 3 of 20 to by the Plaintiff and therefore, Augustine Addai did not extend and has never granted an extension of Plaintiff’s tenancy beyond the initial 10-year period as a tenant. [11] Defendant avers that the store rented by Plaintiff now serves as an office while Plaintiff’s main line of business takes place far removed from the entrance of the store and occupies a significant part of the building’s frontage. [12] It is the case of the Defendant that it has acquired the property in which Plaintiff has his store from its lawful owner, and Augustine Addai demanded Plaintiff to vacate the storeroom because Plaintiff’s tenancy had expired and asked for rent arrears. [13] According to Defendant, when Plaintiff denied the demand on him by Augustine Addai, Augustine Addai sued Plaintiff after Defendant had demanded Augustine Addai to take steps to remove the Plaintiff from the store. [14] According to Defendant, although the Plaintiff rented a store, he has constructed a workshop on the frontage of the building and onto the road that lies along Defendant’s property. As a result, the Plaintiff's activities, which are strewn outside of the let store, have become a nuisance and a danger to road users due to the activities of Plaintiff’s business. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [15] At the close of pleadings, the following issues were set down for determination of the suit. 1. Whether or not the interest acquired by defendant in the property is subject to the equitable right of Plaintiff in the property which extends to 2025. 2. Whether or not plaintiff has a subsisting lease which expires in 2025. 3. Whether or not plaintiff’s lease ended in June 2005 4. Whether or not plaintiff breached the terms of his lease agreement. Page 4 of 20 5. Whether or not defendant is entitled to eject plaintiff from the let shops. 6. Whether or not defendant is entitled to renovate or remodel the property. [16] In proof of his case, Plaintiff testified by himself and did not call any witnesses. The Defendant testified through an Attorney, Augustine Addai. Augustine Addai was the one who leased the property to the Plaintiff. I will examine issues 1,2, and 3 together as they are related. [17] On the evidence, there is no doubt that sometime in 1995, the Plaintiff obtained a 10- year lease of the subject matter in this suit, being 2 shops from one Augustine Addai, who had constructed the same, having obtained a lease from the owner of the land to build on it. The Plaintiff averred in his Statement of Claim that sometime in 1995, he obtained a lease of 10 years from Augustine Addai, the owner of the said store. The Defendant, in his Statement of Defence, admitted Plaintiff obtained the 10 year lease from the said Augustine Addai. [18] The law is that a party to a suit need not lead evidence to establish matters not in dispute or matters that are admitted by the adversary. See the case of In Re Asere stool; Nikoi Olai Amontia IV (Substituted by Tafo Amon II) v Akotia Oworsika III (substituted by) Laryea Ayiku III [2005-2006] SCGLR [19] The disagreement between the parties is the averment by Plaintiff of an additional 20 years acquired by him from Augustine Addai which expires in June 2025. It is pleaded at paragraph 3 of the statement of claim as follows: That sometime in 1995, Plaintiff obtained a lease of 10 years from Augustine Addai the owner of the said stores of which he further obtained 20 years lease on 15th March, 1997, from the said Augustine Addai. Page 5 of 20 [20] The Defendant in paragraph 3 of its Statement of Defence, denied this averment and put the Plaintiff to strict proof of same. [21] The law is it the party who makes an assertion that is denied by his opponent has the burden of proof on that assertion. The Court of Appeal in West Africa Enterprise Limited v Western Hardwood Ent. Limited [1995] 1GLR 155 held as follows: Where an averment made by one party in his pleadings was denied by the other in his defence or reply, it was necessary for the one who made the averment to produce evidence to prove it. [22] In the present case, since the Plaintiff said he had an extension of the original 10-year lease for an additional 20 years which expires in June 2025 a claim the defendant denied, it behoved on the Plaintiff to lead evidence that would tilt in his favour the existence of the facts asserted by him, which is that, he acquired an additional 20-year lease of the two shops from Augustine Addai. [23] The law is also that a person whose pleadings raised an issue essential to the success of his case assumed the burden of proving any such issue. The burden only shifts to the defendant when the plaintiff has adduced evidence to establish the claim. See Ababio v Akwasi III [1994-95] GBR 774. [24] On the discharge of this burden, Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provides as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling on the issue against that party. (4) in other circumstances burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence which on the totality of the evidence leads a Page 6 of 20 reasonable mind to conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence.7 Section 14 of the Act also provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, unless it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence that party is asserting. [25] In the case of Ackah v Pergah Transport Ltd & Others [2010] SCGLR 728 at 736, the Supreme Court per Adinyira JSC opined as follows: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail….” [26] It is a well-established principle that when a party or a witness makes two statements under oath that contain contradictions on material and substantial facts essential to resolving issues before a court or tribunal, and no explanation is given for these contradictions, the party or witness will be regarded as untruthful and unreliable, and their testimony will not satisfy the necessary credibility required to establish their case. INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICTS IN MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF There are some inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the Plaintiff that, in my view, make his testimony not credible and unreliable. [27] In his evidence-in-chief, the Plaintiff said it was one Stephen who represented Augustine Addai and negotiated on his behalf and received all payments thereto in respect of the extension of the tenancy of the Plaintiff. However, under cross- Page 7 of 20 examination, he testified that he dealt with Augustine Addai when he extended his tenancy. This was his testimony under cross-examination. [28] In his evidence-in-chief, the Plaintiff testified as follows: Sometime in 1995, I obtained a lease of 10 years from Augustine Addai the owner of the said stores who later granted me further 20 years lease on 15th March, 1997, from the said Augustine Addai. A copy of the letter is here attached and marked as Exhibit A. The said Augustine Addai was represented at all material times by an Estate Officer called Stephen who negotiated on his behalf [of] Augustine Addai and received all payments thereto. Copies of payment receipts made to Augustine Addai are hereby attached as Exhibit B Series. (bold italics mine) [29] And this is what he said under cross-examination. Q. I am suggesting to you that Mr. Augustine Addai had never granted you an extension of the Tenancy Agreement and has also never authorized anyone to extend your tenancy agreement. A. It is not true Q. Who did you deal with when you were allegedly extending your tenancy agreement? A. It was with Mr. Augustine Addai because he was the Landlord. I and my team we were three team members had a discussion with Mr. Augustine Addai and there was one other person with Mr. Augustine Addai called Stephen. Before that, Mr. Augustine Addai introduced Stephen as his Estate Officer, after the discussions, Mr Addai asked him to give us a letter. The following day Stephen brought us the lease, the same terms and conditions that we discussed were in the lease. (Bold italics mine) Page 8 of 20 [30] Again, the Plaintiff, in his evidence-in-chief referred supra, testified that it was Stephen who negotiated on behalf of Augustine Addai and received all payments thereto in respect of the alleged extension of the tenancy. However. under cross-examination, he testified that it was Mr. Abrokwah who received the rent. This is what he said. Q. Do you have anything from Mr. Augustine Addai that he mandated anyone to act for him. A. Yes. Q. Can you make a copy available to the Court. A. Mr. Augustine Addai asked Stephen to act on his behalf, he was the one who wrote the letter and signed on his behalf. Q. It was the said Stephen who collected the said money from you. Is that correct? A. The money he came to collect, it was Mr. Augustine Addai who asked them to come for it and every money I paid, I was given a receipt. Q. Who received the alleged rent from you ? A. Mr. Augustine Addai’s agent. Q. Who received the money and gave you the receipt. A. Mr Abrokwah [31] Also, there are some inconsistencies as to the amount paid for the alleged extension, which is discussed in paragraph 43 below. [32] I am not unmindful that minor contradictions and inconsistencies in witness evidence do not necessarily make that witness’s evidence unreliable, especially when the contradictions and inconsistencies are explained and the inconsistencies and Page 9 of 20 contradictions are not material to the determination of issues before the court. In Republic v Adekura [1984-86] 2 GLR 345,CA, it was held thus : If the evidence is offered to prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue or probative of a matter in issue, the evidence is properly said to be immaterial. We find these conflicts immaterial and they could not be used either to bolster the defence or to impeach credibility. [33] Also, in the case of Effisah v Ansah [2005-2006] SCGLR 943 in holding of the headnote also stated the principle in the following terms: In the real world, evidence led at any trial which turned principally on issues of fact involving a fair number of witnesses, would not be entirely free from inconsistencies, conflicts and contradictions and the like. In evaluating evidence led at a trial, the presence of such matters per se, should not justify a wholesale rejection of the evidence to which they might elate. Thus, in any given case, minor, immaterial, insignificant, non-critical inconsistencies must not be dwelt upon to deny justice to a party who had substantially discharged his or her burden of persuasion. [34] In the present case, the inconsistencies and conflicts in the Plaintiff’s evidence pertain to material evidence with respect to the substantive issue before the court. In my view, these inconsistencies and conflicts are highly relevant to determining whether the Plaintiff obtained an extension of his tenancy. This renders the Plaintiff’s evidence unreliable and lacking the credibility necessary to establish his claim. Consequently, I am unable to depend on such unreliable evidence to make a finding that resolves the issue in the Plaintiff’s favour. FAILURE TO CALL MATERIAL WITNESSES Page 10 of 20 [35] An adverse inference may be drawn against a party who does not call a material witness under their exclusive control and fails to provide an explanation. Such a failure is viewed as an implied admission that the evidence of the absent witness would contradict the party's case or, at the very least, would not support it. [36] The Plaintiff testified that it was Stephen who represented Augustine Addai in the dealings and received all payments thereto. He also testified that there were three persons with him when he negotiated with Augustine Addai for the extension of the tenancy. He further testified that Mr Addai asked Stephen to give them a letter. The following day, Stephen brought them the lease, the same terms and conditions that we discussed were in the lease. The defendant denied all these allegations. The Plaintiff failed to call Stephen or any of his team members who were present when Augustine Addai negotiated with him to corroborate his evidence. Even though he said under cross-examination that these people were available. [37] This is what ensued under cross-examination. Q. Where are your team members A. They are there. Q. Why have you not called anyone as a witness? A. If they are needed to testify, I will call them. [38] A witness whose evidence is likely to be sufficiently important to influence the outcome of a trial is a material witness who must be invited to assist the court. Therefore, the failure of the Plaintiff to call any member of his team or Stephen, who in my view are material witnesses, was fatal to Plaintiff’s case. Page 11 of 20 [39] In William Mensah vs Mutala Lamidi & Anor Suit No. H1/63/2021 20th April 2023 (Unreported) The Court of Appeal per Bright Mensah JA held thus: Under the English Common Law, a witness whose evidence is likely to be sufficiently important to influence the outcome of a trial is a material witness who must be invited to assist the court. Therefore, the failure of the appellant in our present case to call such a material witness was fatal to his case. See: R v Ansere [1958] 2 WALR 385. See also: Ogbarmey-Tetteh v Ogbarmey-Tetteh [1993-94] 1 GLR 353 SC. [40] In the circumstances of this case where the Plaintiff’s averments and evidence regarding the extension of his tenancy have been denied, coupled with his inconsistent and conflict riddled testimony, it is my view that the failure of the Plaintiff to call any of his team members or Stephen to corroborate his evidence is fatal to his case. [41] The plaintiff testified that after the discussion and agreement for the alleged renewal, Mr Addai asked Stephen to give them a letter. The following day, Stephen brought them the lease, the same terms and conditions that they discussed were in the lease. The law is that where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way by producing e.g documents, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath. [42] In Kluste and Anor v Nelson [1965] DLSC 1816 Apaloo J.S.C citing with approval the dictum of Ollenu on what proof is in law in Majolagbe v. Larbi stated thus: “In any event, she did not prove excessive speed by merely repeating in the witness-box an averment denied in the pleadings. In this connection, I refer, with respectful approval to the dictum of Ollennu J. (as he then was) in the High Court case of Majolagbe v. Larbi, where the learned judge is reported to have said: Page 12 of 20 “‘Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true’.” [43] The Plaintiff tendered Exhibit A, which is captioned “Lease of Store”. The contents of exhibit A indicate it was a proposal and not an agreement. or a Lease so called. For clarity and better understanding, I will reproduce Exhibit A. Augustine Addai (ACTION) P.O. Box 12175 Accra 15 March 1997 TO: KEDO PRINTING PRESS ACCRA LEASE OF STORE You are hereby to be notified that the store(s) you are occupying on rental basis for an agreement of 10 years period can be leased to you for additional period of 20 years making a total of 30 years as per the agreement signed with the principal LESSOR of the land, as it has been verbally discussed or proposed to you. 1. If this proposal is accepted you will pay an amount of ¢5.M. (five million cedis) on each store. Page 13 of 20 2. If the said amount is accepted and payment is fully made, no more monthly rent will be collected. 3. If you are not interested in the proposal or purchasing of the store, the said store, will be sold to any person who will be interested, and you will be informed accordingly. 4. Thereafter, all transaction about your sore will between you and the purchaser. Looking forward to your immediate reply. Yours faithfully, SIGNED FOR: AUGISTINE ADDAI(ACTION) [44] The Defendant has denied Exhibit A. Augustine Addai, in his testimony, said he never authorised anyone called Stephen to negotiate and sign any lease on his behalf. The evidence of the said Stephen was material to the determination of the allegation that Augustine Addai authorised Stephen to sign Exhibit A. The Plaintiff failed to call the said Stephen, who he alleged signed Exhibit A on behalf of Augustine Adda. In any case, the contents of Exhibit A indicates that it was a proposal. The Plaintiff himself described it as a letter in his evidence in chief. This is a proposal and not a definitive agreement. The Plaintiff was to reply to the proposal if he was interested in the proposal. And this is what ensued under cross-examination. Q. You do not have any tenancy agreement after your tenancy was allegedly extended. A. No. I was given a specific letter. Page 14 of 20 [45] In Exhibit A, the amount mentioned was ¢5.M per each shop. So, the total for the two shops would be ¢10 M. Yet the Plaintiff testified under cross examination that he paid ¢8 M. This what he said: Q. Can you tell the court how much you allegedly paid for the extension of your tenancy. A. Eight million old Ghana Cedis. [46] Plaintiff tendered in evidence EXHIBIT B series. Exhibit B series are receipts are in respect of rent allegedly received on behalf of Augustine Addai. Augustine Addai denies authorising anyone to receive any rent on his behalf and issue receipts to that effect. The signatures on Exhibit B series are not that of Augustine Addai. The person who signed it signed for Augustine Addai. And the total payment of monies in Exhibit B series is ¢8.6 M, which is in conflict with the ¢8M plaintiff said he paid and the ¢10M stated in Exhibit A. All these conflicts negatively affect the credibility of Plaintiff’s testimony. [47] Receipts are by themselves not meant to transfer interests in land. However, they are evidence of payments in pursuance of an agreement to transfer an interest in land. See: In Re: Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] SCGLR 420. [48] By parity of reasoning, it can be said that even though there is no renewed lease between the Plaintiff and Augustine Addai, a receipt for payment of an extended tenancy could be evidence that the tenancy was indeed extended for a further 20 years. However, in the present case, Augustine Addai denied that he renewed the tenancy and did not receive rents for any tenancy renewal. [49] In the circumstances of the present case where Augustine Addai has categorically denied instructing the said Stephen to extend the tenancy of the Plaintiff, receive Page 15 of 20 payments and issue receipts to the Plaintiff, the said Stephen was a material witness and his evidence would have helped the court make a determination on the issue. The failure of Plaintiff to call Stephen, in my view, indicates that the said Stephen does not exist or if he does exist, his evidence would have been in conflict with the evidence of the Plaintiff. failure to call Stephen is fatal to Plaintiff’s case. [50] On the evidence, I am unable to accept Exhibit A as a lease for the extension of the tenancy between the Plaintiff and Augustine Addai. [51] There is evidence on record that Mr. Augustine Addai took action against the Plaintiff for the alleged extension of the tenancy agreement. For a better understanding and clarity, the testimony of the Attorney of the Defendant would be necessary. I reiterate that I have never instructed or authorised anyone to act for me or represent me whatsoever and had also never received any payment in respect of the alleged renewal/extension of Plaintiff’s tenancy………. When Plaintiff insisted that his tenancy had been renewed for him on my authority, a dispute arose between us and I reported the conduct of the Plaintiff to the Police at Dansoman as I believed the Plaintiff had faked or forged the renewal of his tenancy to avoid being ejected from the premises but the Police advised us to take the matter to court……………………. I was therefore left with no option but to cause a writ of summons to issue against the Plaintiff to recover my rent arrears and the storerooms in possession of the Plaintiff. [52] Defendant tendered in the writ of summons and statement of claim as exhibit 5. Among the reliefs sought by Augustine Addai against the Plaintiff was an order for immediate ejection of the Defendant and for the Defendant to give vacant possession of the two stores and the office room, respectively, to the Plaintiff in a tenantable manner. Page 16 of 20 [53] It was pleaded at paragraphs 4, 5,9 and 10 of the statement of claim as follows: 4. Plaintiff says upon completion of the said property, he rented or let out two of the said stores to the Defendant herein in 1995 for a term of ten years to operate a printing press business. 5. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s term for the two stores expired in June 2005 but Defendant has up till today refused , failed or ignored to vacate the said stores despite several notices to him to do so. 9. Plaintiff avers he travelled out of Ghana in or about 2002 on health grounds and returned in 2006, but was immediately struck down with a debilitating stroke until 2012 when he could walk again. 10. Plaintiff says that the defendant has resisted all demands to pay the rent arrears insisting that Plaintiff had extended the terms granted him, when I fact, the Plaintiff had done no such thing at any time whatsoever. [54] The Plaintiff admitted under cross-examination that Augustine Addai sued him. This is what he said. Q. When you claimed that your tenancy had been extended for you by Mr. Augustine Addai and refused to pay rent when he came to you, he challenged your assertion. A. I summoned Mr. Augustine Addai to court because he had sold the property to somebody else. Q. Do you have evidence of the said Court case you talked about ? A. Yes. Page 17 of 20 Q. I am suggesting to you that you have not summoned Mr. Augustine Addai before any Court. A. That is not true. Q. When you alleged that someone else extended your tenancy agreement for you, Mr. Austine Addai reported you to the Police. Is that correct? A. Yes, I was invited to the Dansoman Police Station and I gave them my statement and the Police asked me to bring a witness. The witness was asked to make a statement. The police told me when they need me, they will call me. Q. After the Police case, Mr. Augustine Addai called his Lawyer to write to you demanding the rent arrears and also requested that you vacate the store rooms. A. That is true. [55] The question is, if indeed, Augustine Addai had granted an extension of the lease, why would he make a complaint against him to the Police and later ask his lawyers to write to him when Plaintiff alleged that someone else extended your tenancy agreement for him? The only logical conclusion in the circumstances of this case is that Augustine Addai never renewed the tenancy for the Plaintiff. Augustine Addai had always insisted that he has not renewed or extended the tenancy of the Plaintiff in the property. Plaintiff was required by law to provided credible and acceptable evidence in proof of his case, which he failed to do. He failed to call Stephen whom he alleged renewed the tenancy for him n behalf of the Plaintiff. On the probabilities, I am satisfied that Augustine Addai did not renew the tenancy for a further 20 years for the Plaintiff. [56] In Tafali v Yakubu [2018] GHASC 28 (9 May 2018), the Supreme Court per Baffoe- Bonnie, JSC held as follows: Page 18 of 20 “The role of a trial judge in a civil matter is to determine from the evidence available which of the parties adduced credible and sufficient evidence to tilt in his favour the balance of probabilities on an issue. In Bisi v. Tabiri alias Asare [1987-88] 1 GLR 360, the Supreme Court had this to say on the burden of proof: “The standard of proof required of a plaintiff in civil action was to lead such evidence as would tilt in his favour the balance of probabilities on the particular issue. The demand for strict proof of pleadings had however never been taken to call for an inflexible proof either beyond reasonable doubt or with mathematical exactitude or with such precision as would fit a jig-saw puzzle. Preponderance of evidence became the triers belief in the preponderance of probability. But “probability” denoted an element of doubt or uncertainty and recognized that where there were two choices it was sufficient if the choice selected was more probable than the choice rejected…” [57] In the present case, the Plaintiff’s evidence on the alleged extension of the tenancy by Augustine Addai for a further 20 years is contradictory and doubtful. I am unable to make a finding on it. On the totality of the evidence, I am of the view that, on the balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff did not obtain a 20-year renewal of his tenancy with Augustine Adda and hold that the Plaintiff’s tenancy expired in June 2005 and he has no subsisting lease or tenancy in the property as he claims. [58] Regarding issues 4,5, and 6, Defendant led evidence that it needed to remodel the property and the property has been approved for demolition by the Ablekuma North Municipal Assembly. He has paid for a building permit. In preparation for the remoulding of the premises, the Defendant informed all other tenants to move out to make way for the works, and all tenants have moved out except the Plaintiff. Page 19 of 20 [59] These material pieces of evidence were not denied by the Plaintiff. The Defendant, as the owner, is entitled to renovate or remodel the property. I am, however, unable to grant any relief to the Defendant as they did not make any counter-claim against the Plaintiff. [60] For the above reasons, I will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim, and it is hereby dismissed. I award Defendant Costs of Ghs10,000.00. (SGD.) AYITEY ARMAH-TETTEH J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) Page 20 of 20