SERWAA VRS. AGBANU (AR/AO/DC2/C4/16/25) [2025] GHADC 18 (29 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ASOKWA-KUMASI ON WEDNESDAY, 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025, BEFORE HER WORSHIP AMY BONDZIE- HANSON ESQ., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. SUIT NO: AR/AO/DC2/C4/16/25 MADAM AKUA SERWAA OF H/NO: PLT. 19 ATASOMANSO V MR. LISTOWEL AGBANU OF H/NO: PLOT 19, ATASOMANSO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT This is a case involving a landlord and her tenant. The plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the house which was rented by the defendant –tenant sued out writ of summons against the defendant claiming the following reliefs: a. The immediate eviction of the defendant from her property b. The defendant puts the room in the state it was “wear” and “tear” accepted. c. The defendant settles all outstanding bills including his rent for September. d. Cost and any other money this honourable Court deem fit [sic] The defendant pleaded not liable to the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and the parties were referred to the court connected alternative dispute resolution mechanism to attempt settlement of the matter but same was not successful. 1 This action being of a civil nature is proved on the preponderance of probabilities as per Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Decree 1972 NRCD 323 and as held in the case of Aryeh Akakpo v. Yaa Iddrisu [2010] SCGLR 891 that: “The standard of proof of allegations in civil case is by preponderance of probabilities.” “Preponderance of probabilities” is defined in Section 12(2) of NRCD 323 as: “The degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” It is further provided in Section 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) that: “Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a person has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting.” It is trite learning that in civil cases, the general rule is that the party who in his pleadings or Writ raises issues essential to the success of his case assumes the onus of proof. He who asserts must prove. The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays the charges. The plaintiff making the claims stated in her reliefs bears the burden of proving the allegations she has made against the defendant with cogent evidence. The plaintiff opened her case on 3/12/24 and gave evidence that the defendant is her tenant. She stated that sometime in August, 2023 the defendant came to rent one room in her house. The defendant came to look at the place on Saturday, 12 August, 2023 and expressed his interest in renting the room and so came back on Sunday, 13th August, 2023 to make payment for the room. Defendant paid a total of three thousand six hundred Ghana cedis (Ghs 3600.00) for twelve months at three hundred Ghana cedis (Ghs 300.00) per month commencing 13th August, 2023 and ending 26th August, 2 2024. The parties did not execute any tenancy agreement but orally agreed on the terms of the contract. According to the plaintiff, she permitted the defendant to have access to her store room where she kept some building tools and materials she kept to complete some works she had to do on her compound. She gave the defendant one of the keys to her store room to enable him go there whenever he needed to access the room since the defendant was working in the room she had given out to him. She even granted defendant permission to use some of her building materials like plywood and other items for the works he was doing in his room. This, she says she did out of sympathy for the defendant. Plaintiff stated further that aside the defendant pleading with her to allow him use some of her building materials, defendant also sought her consent to create a hole at one side of the room which she agreed to. Plaintiff in her testimony said at that time when the defendant created the hole she queried the defendant why he had sought permission to create a small hole but has ended up creating a big one. However, she did not say anything to the defendant. Plaintiff stated that the defendant wants to be a boss in her house. He does not empty his bins and does not respect her so she observed the defendant’s conduct and told him to take his balance of the rent he paid and vacate the room. She gave the defendant an eviction letter which she tendered in evidence as exhibit ‘B’ however, after receiving exhibit ‘B’ defendant refused to vacate the room but rather reported the matter to the Rent Control Department. At the rent control the parties were encouraged to settle the matter amicable but plaintiff did not open herself her for any settlement at all. She insisted that the defendant vacates the room because she needs the room for her niece to occupy same to take care of her since she is getting old. Plaintiff concluded her evidence that she wants the court to order the defendant to pay the outstanding rent arrears of Ghs 900.00 and for the defendant to put the room in the state in which he found it. 3 The defendant denied the substance of the plaintiff’s case. He testified that he rented the plaintiff’s room and the tenancy commenced on 26th August, 2023 and was to end on 26th August, 2024. According to the defendant, although his rent was to expire in August, 2024, the plaintiff in March, 2024 sent him a notice to quit which he sent to the Rent Control Department upon which the plaintiff was invited. At the Rent Control Department the rent officer conducted a hearing and concluded that since the plaintiff insists on evicting him she should refund to him the amount of two thousand four hundred (Ghs 2400.00) being the amount of money he expended on renovation he did in the room before occupying same together with the balance of his rent advance which was one thousand five hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 1500.00) since the rent had not expired. Defendant tendered a copy of the proceedings at the Rent Control Department in evidence through the plaintiff as exhibit 1. According to the defendant, pursuant to the orders of the principal rent officer plaintiff after the parties left the rent office sent one other tenant who stays in the house called Eva Owusuaa to hand over one thousand (Ghs 1200.00) being the balance of defendant’s rent advance to him. Defendant refused to take the money because it did not include the Ghs 2400.00 being the cost he had incurred in renovating the room. He reported the matter back to the rent officer and he was advised to stay in the room until the plaintiff had paid the cost incurred in renovating the room so, he informed the plaintiff and continued staying in the room. Although plaintiff was subsequently invited to the Rent Control Department, she did not honour the invitation. He was later served with the instant writ to appear in court. Defendant stated that he had vacated the room since 22nd December, 2022 in the course of the proceedings. He denied owing the plaintiff any rent arrears and indicated that 4 it was rather the plaintiff who owes his an amount of Ghs 1200.00 being the cost of the renovation. He added that the parties agreed that the amount of money defendant would expend on renovating the room would be used to defray rent however, the plaintiff later wanted to go back on her agreement when he requested for a tenancy agreement. Defendant added that plaintiff later told him that the electricity meter defendant uses was procured by his predecessor tenant at his own expense and so the renovation works carried out in the room ought to be the defendant’s own expense too, contrary to the earlier agreement reached between the parties that the cost of the renovation would be used to defray rent. According to the defendant, the plaintiff started asking him to vacate the premises when he started impressing on the plaintiff to execute a tenancy agreement for him. He concluded his evidence that the plaintiff was not entitled to her claims. The parties in the course of the trial agreed in court to go back and attempt settlement of the matter. This occurred on 3rd December, 2024 when during cross-examination of the plaintiff defendant told the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer came to the house and spoke with him about the case and so he is ready to vacate the room since he has been transferred back to Accra to go and work there. The parties agreed in open court that the defendant would vacate the room by the 22nd December, 2024. Plaintiff told the court that she is foregoing the reliefs she claims from the defendant because the defendant has agreed to vacate the room. The matter was thus adjourned for the parties to announce settlement on the next date or for trial to continue. On 8th January, 2025 when the parties appeared in court, they informed the court that the defendant has vacated the room as agreed. However, the plaintiff insisted that the defendant be ordered to repair damages caused to her property. To the mind of the 5 court settlement had broken down between the parties yet again and so the trial proceeded. Plaintiff had told the court on 3rd December, 2024 that she was waiving all the claims made against the defendant but on 8th January, 2025, she informed the court that she still insists that the defendant causes repairs done to the property or puts the property back into the state the defendant found it before occupying same. The evidence on record indicates that the defendant has vacated the room. This has rendered relief (a) moot. Further, the plaintiff during cross-examination waived reliefs (c), and (d) and added that the defendant does not owe any rent arrears and utility bills. Thus, the sole issue for determination is whether or not plaintiff consented to the defendant carrying out the renovation works he did in the room before occupying same and if so whether or not the defendant is liable to put the room back in the state it was “wear and tear” accepted. The plaintiff in her evidence in chief testified that the defendant sought her consent to renovate the room. She even permitted the defendant to use some of her plywood and other building materials while carrying out the renovation works. Plaintiff further testified that she gave defendant one of the keys to her store room where she kept her building materials. Plaintiff has testified that when she went to see that the work being done by the defendant was bigger than what she anticipated she did not say anything. This happened in August, 2023 before the defendant occupied the room. The defendant insists that he sought the consent of the plaintiff before carrying out any renovation works in room. He testified that at each of the step of the work the plaintiff was aware of what was going on and that had the plaintiff not granted him permission he would not have expended the money he spent to renovate the room. Defendant tendered in evidence exhibit 2 series showing videos and pictures of the 6 room before he occupied same, during the renovation works and at the time he vacated the premises. During cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant following is what ensued: Q. On the day I paid the money to you I came with a witness by name Theophilous Ofori Amoah, is that not the case? A. That is not so. It was on the 12th August, 2023 that was a Saturday that you came with someone but on the 13th August when you came to pay for the room you did not bring any witness. Q. I want to put it to plaintiff that I went to plaintiff with Theophilous on both the 12th and 13th August, 2023. A. That is not correct. The defendant came alone on 13th August 2023 when he came to make payment. Q. Do you remember that when we paid for the room we told you that we would factor the cost of the improvement will make in the room as rent advance? A. Not correct Q. I introduced every carpenter, mason and electrician who ever worked in the room to you before they started working not so? A. Not true Q. I put it to you that you even engaged the mason I introduced to you to extend your wall by way of further construction. A. That is true. It was after you brought the mason to do your work for you that I also engaged the mason to do my work and I paid him. Q. You were inspecting every stage of the work while we were working in the room. A. Not correct 7 Q. even in one of your inspections you specifically instructed me to buy odum for the door and also use the same type of door which was used for the room. A. that is correct … On 8/1/2025 during further cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant, Plaintiff answers question put to her by Defendant as follows: - Q. Do remember that you had stored a stack of wood in the kitchen which you made me remove and pack outside unto the other plot? A. That is so. They were proper wood I wanted to use for some work in the house. Q. I put it to you that before I occupied the room the previous occupant had drilled holes in the rooms. A. Not correct. Q. I put it to you that it is these very same holes which existed previously that that I used to fix my curtains. A. Not correct Q. Kindly show her the video on the pen drive which labelled exhibit”2” showing the already drilled holes in the bathrooms. A. Yes I see the holes drilled there. Q. You claim I have destroyed your wardrobe but that is not the case, your wardrobe is still intact. A. The wardrobe is still there, defendant changed its position. Q. You were also aware that renovation works were done by electricians and carpenters in the premises. A. Not correct 8 Q. I put it to you that you were very much aware of all the works I did in the house before occupying same because I introduced every worker I brought to work there to you. A. I do not know the electrician. It was only the painter he introduced to me. It was later he introduced the carpenter to me. He introduced the mason after he had started working on the wall by removing my wardrobe. Q. I put it to you that I introduced the mason to you before doing the main renovation works in the house and you even contracted the mason to build a wall for you. A. That is so. It was after the mason had finished the works in the defendant’s room. Q. Do you remember that after I vacated the room I was the one who came to knock at your door to ask you to come and inspect same? A. He did so. But it was not in the night. It was in the morning. Q. You remember that even during the inspection you showed me a place that there was still dirt at a certain corner and so you instructed me to clean the area again which I did on two occasions. A. Not correct Q. Even after we finished the inspection, we had a conversation generally for about four minutes about the road construction and how the dust coming from there is disturbing you. A. yes we did but I had taken my own decision in my head. Q. can you confirm to the court that I vacated from the premises on 22nd December, 2024? A. Yes, I can confirm. Q. I put it to you that since you gave me the authorization or permission to renovate the room you are not entitled to your claim asking me to put the room back in the state I met it. A. I did not authorize any renovation works. I am entitled to my reliefs. 9 Q. I do not owe any outstanding bills because I even have an extra amount of one hundred cedis (GHȻ 100) on the electricity meter. And in respect of the rent you rather have to refund the amount I expended on the building to me. A. He does not owe any outstanding bills. He does not owe any rent. I just want him to renovate the property as he met it. Q. I put it to you that the state in which I left the premises is far better than I met it. A. Not correct. … During cross-examination of defendant by the plaintiff on 8th January, 2025 the plaintiff put her case to the defendant that, Q. I am putting to you that I am in court today not because of the works you did with my consent which I saw you do but the ones you did on your own accord with electricians. A. Then the plaintiff has to specify because there is no single thing I have done in the house which she did not consent to or was not aware of. From the evidence before me I find that the plaintiff was aware of the renovation works undertaken by the defendant in the room before occupying same. The plaintiff admitted under cross-examination having knowledge of the presence of the workers who the defendant engaged to work in the room. Indeed, exhibit 2 shows the state of the room before, during and after the renovation works. The videos on exhibit 2 show corroborates the defendant’s case that the state in which he left the room was far better than it was when he occupied same. I do not think that the nature of the works carried out in the room especially the creating of the entrance on the side of the room was something that the defendant 10 could have done without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff because the mason had to break part of the wall to create the entrance. This work created some level of noise as can be seen in exhibit “2” which could not have been done without the plaintiff who stays in the same house knowing what was going on. Further in exhibit 1 the proceedings at the rent control, the plaintiff herein stated in no uncertain terms that she was very much aware of the renovation works which was carried out by the defendant. In her evidence in chief on 27th March, 2024 as captured in exhibit 1, the plaintiff stated that “even though the improvement works done by complainant at the property in question is in good condition and good looking, I am not going to refund any money to him as improvement cost as demanded by him in his evidence in chief.” It is therefore not surprising that the plaintiff in cross-examining the defendant put her case to the defendant that she is not in court because of the works she consented to the defendant doing but rather the ones that the defendant did without her consent with the electrician. The plaintiff who bears the burden of proving the damages she alleges has been caused to her property has not provided a shred of evidence to show the damage she alleges defendant has caused to the premises neither has she distinguished the works she consented to from the ones she claims defendant carried out without her consent. She rather admitted the defendant’s case that she was aware of and consented to all the works that the defendant did to improve the premises. The plaintiff has failed to prove her claims against the defendant and so her action fails. 11 Exhibit 2 shows the improvement done by the defendant in the premises. Aside creating another entrance to connect the room which he occupied with the adjacent room and fixing a door and lock, defendant also polished the wardrobe and kitchen cabinet and the doors and door frames. He also caused an electrician to change all the old switches and light bulbs and replaced them with new ones, and painted the room as well. In exhibit ‘2’ the state the defendant left the room was an improvement of the room without doubt which he would be entitled to compensation from the plaintiff. The Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) provides under Section 21 that: Section 21- Compensation for improvements Where a tenant who has made improvements to his premises, with the approval of the landlord of the premises is requested to vacate his premises before the prescribed period, the landlord of such premises shall pay such compensation for the improvements as may be ordered by the appropriate Rent Officer within such period as may be specified by him. The defendant claims that he is entitled to compensation from the plaintiff for the improvement he has made to the premises. The evidence before the court shows that the defendant’s tenancy expired on 26th August, 2024 although the plaintiff started serving eviction notices on him in March, 2024 and offered to refund the balance of the rent advance to him which he refused to take. When the parties appeared before the rent officer, he ordered the plaintiff herein to refund the amount of two thousand four hundred Ghana Cedis (Ghs 2400.00) the defendant claimed to have spent on renovating the premises to him. Since at the time the decision was taken by the rent officer the tenancy had not expired, the defendant was entitled to that amount as compensation from the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not vacate the room until 22nd December, 2024 which is almost four months after the expiration of his rent 12 advance. The defendant is not entitled to any compensation from the plaintiff since he did not vacate the premises before the expiration of his tenancy. In the circumstance, having considered the evidence before me, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations of the defendant causing any damage to her premises. I further hold that the plaintiff was aware of all the renovation works done by the defendant in the premises and being so aware of and consenting to the renovation works carried out by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief she claims that the defendant be ordered to put the room back in the state he found it before occupying same. The defendant is not entitled to any compensation from the plaintiff as he did not vacate the room during the subsistence of his tenancy but rather after its expiration. In conclusion, the plaintiff’s claim fails and same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. (SGD) H/W. AMY BONDZIE-HANSON ESQ., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 29/01/2025 13