AIKINS VRS. SHARAWI (G/WJ/DG/A9/95/2022) [2025] GHADC 3 (15 January 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WEIJA, ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE HER WORSHIP RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS), DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. G/WJ/DG/A9/95/2022 REBECCA AIKINS PLAINTIFF VRS BASHA SHARAWI DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF IS PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY JOHN LISTOWELL SEKLE ESQ. DEFENDANT IS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY RICHARD NII ARMAH ESQ. JUDGMENT The Plaintiff caused an amended writ of summons to issue against the Defendant on 18th April 2023 for the following reliefs; 1. Declaration of title to that piece or parcel of land on which a four-bedroom house was built (H/No. 29, Lime St., GS-0688-27) by the plaintiff which is situate, lying and being at Iron City Amanfrom from Accra within the Ga South District Assembly. 2. An order by this Honourable Court to eject the Defendant from the disputed property forthwith since his rent has long expired and also to compel the defendant to pay any rent arrears to the plaintiff. 3. Cost including legal fees. The defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim on 30th May 2023 for the following; a. A refund of GHC300,000.00 to him from the plaintiffs before he is evicted from the property or b. In the alternative, an order directed at the plaintiffs to allow him live in the property at an agreeable rate for the amount spent to improve the house with her consent. c. Cost including legal fees. The plaintiff filed a reply to the statement of defence and defence to counter claim on 23rd June 2023. At the close of pleadings, the court set down the matter for trial. Counsel for the defendant informed the court that defendant was indisposed and presently out of the jurisdiction and that all persons who were to testify on his behalf have refused to come to court. As a result, defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed and plaintiff was allowed to prove her claim pursuant to Order 25 r1(2)(a) of the District Court Rules 2009, C.I. 59. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF Plaintiff says that she is an illiterate who cannot read and write and the owner of a four- bedroom self-contained house numbered 29, Lime St, GS-0688-27 at Iron City, Amanfro in Accra hereinafter referred to as the premises. It is her case that in the month of October 2021, she was approached by one Abena Serwah and Kobby with the request of renting the premises for a period of one year at a rate of GHC1,400.00 per month for their aunt who lives abroad and was yet to come to Ghana. It is her further case that thereafter one Lukeman Abdul Razak came to her and introduced himself as Basha and made payment of GHC15,000.00 out of the total rent of GHC16,800.00 having agreed that the balance of GHC1,800.00 was to be used for repair works on the kitchen cabinets and the broken locks in the property. She added that Lukeman gave her a document to sign under the pretext that same was in connection with the use of the balance of GHC1,800.00 knowing fully well that as an illiterate, she was unable to read and write. She tendered a copy of the document in evidence and same was admitted and marked as Exhibit A. Plaintiff pleaded that at the time of renting out the premises, same was in a tenantable state. She tendered photographs of the state of the premises at the time of its rental in evidence and same were admitted and marked as Exhibit B series. According to her, she received notifications of accumulated water bills from the Ghana Water Company which prompted her to send one Kwaku Abban to the premises to ascertain the reasons for the said notifications. She tendered copies of the bills in evidence and same were admitted and marked as Exhibit C series. She added that during the said visit, Kwaku Abban discovered that Lukeman Abdul Razak was in occupation of the property and not the aunt of Abena Serwah and Kobby as she had been made to believe. Kweku Abban informed her that the said Lukeman had carried out some unauthorised redevelopment of the property without her knowledge and consent. Plaintiff says that she followed up to the house subsequently and met the defendant who introduced himself to her as Basha. She averred that defendant tried to convince her about the upgrade saying that he wanted to make the house look modern with automations but she refused and informed him that she was going to have a discussion with her family and revert back to him. Plaintiff averred that she gave the defendant a copy of her tenancy agreement for him to sign but he refused to sign same and continued to develop the property despite her objections and warnings. She tendered a copy of the tenancy agreement she offered to the defendant and same was admitted and marked as Exhibit D. Plaintiff pleaded that she lodged a complaint at the Rent Control Office where defendant was ordered to stop work on the premises until the issues were resolved but he disregarded the said orders and continued working on same. On the advice of the Rent Officer, plaintiff says she lodged a complaint against the defendant at the Toll Booth Police Station and despite the advice of the police, he continued to develop the premises even though his tenancy had long expired. According to the plaintiff, defendant raised the fence wall upward on his own accord, redesigned, moulded and painted the main gate without her authorisation. She tendered photographs depicting the unauthorised redevelopment of the property and same were admitted and marked as Exhibit E series. She added that in the course of the redevelopment, defendant caused damage to a concrete block kitchen cabinet designed with tiles, a double sink erected on the block, six ceiling fans, the whole ceiling in one room, the original tiles at the porch, the security razor wires on the fence wall, electrical cables, tiles laid in a small gutter at the frontage of the house and all pavement blocks in the house. She tendered photographs of the damaged items in evidence and same were admitted and marked as Exhibit F series. She also tendered Exhibits H series which were photographs that depicted the actual state of the property before it was rented out and video recordings marked as Exhibit I. She concluded by stating that she never consented to the works defendant carried out on her premises. She prayed the court to eject the defendant from the property and compel him to pay his rent arrears. She called George Abban and Kate Osei as PW1 and PW2 respectively. PW1 testified that he lived in the premises from 2014 for ten years and that the premises was in a tenantable condition before same was rented out to the defendant and that when he visited the property, he noticed that the defendant had destroyed the kitchen cabinet and some ceiling fans. PW2 informed the court that she was not present when plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant and that whatever information she had about the case is what had been narrated to her by the plaintiff. DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether or not defendant is plaintiff’s tenant and if so 2. whether or not plaintiff consented to the redevelopment of her property and if so whether or not defendant is entitled to any compensation for the improvements made to plaintiff’s premises. 3. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the premises BURDEN OF PROOF The law is trite that for a court to decide a case one way or the other, each party to the suit must adduce evidence on the issues to be determined by the court to the standard prescribed by law. This position is supported by sections 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The means of effecting proof was explained in Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR 190, where Ollenu J. (as he then was) held that: “Proof, in law is the establishment of fact by proper legal means; in other words, the establishment of an averment by admissible evidence. Where a party makes an averment and his averment is denied, he is unlikely to be held by the court to have sufficiently proved that averment by his merely going into the witness box, and repeating his averment on oath, if he does not adduce that corroborative evidence which (if his averment be true) is certain to exist.” Has the plaintiff been able to discharge this legal burden? ISSUE ONE Section 36 of the Rent Act, 1963, Act 220 defines tenant as follows; “tenant” means any person who leases premises from another person in consideration of the payment of rent and includes- (a) any person deriving title under the original tenant; (b) a sub-tenant (c) a person who before the commencement of this Act has retained possession of premises and who on and after such commencement continues in possession of such premises; and (d) a person who shall retain possession of any premises by virtue of the provisions of this Act. I find from the evidence that Lukeman paid the sum GHC15,000.00 being rent for a period of one year to the plaintiff. It is not clear why Plaintiff never questioned Kobby and Abena Serwaa to ascertain whether or not Lukeman was paying the rent on behalf of their supposed aunt. Indeed, at paragraph 17 of plaintiff’s witness statement, when plaintiff met the defendant in occupation of the premises the subject matter of this dispute, she did not take immediate steps to eject him from same as a trespasser but instead evinced an intention to recognise him as her tenant having regard to the sum of GHC15,000.00 paid to her earlier by one Lukeman. Applying the law cited supra to the facts of this case, I find that defendant is plaintiff’s tenant. ISSUE TWO Whether or not plaintiff consented to the redevelopment of her premises and if so whether or not she can eject the defendant from same Section 21 of Act 220, reads; Compensation for improvements 21. Where a tenant who has made improvements to his premises with the approval of the landlord of the premise is requested to vacate his premises before the prescribed period, the landlord of such premises shall pay such compensation for the improvement as may be ordered by the appropriate Rent Officer within such period as may be specified by him. [Emphasis provided] During cross examination of the plaintiff the following information was elicited; Q: Do you also remember that when we started the processes at the rent office, you insisted that you had never given defendant any permission to conduct any renovations in your house? A: that is true Q: My question is what is your comment about what your grandson said to Basha in the video you have just witnessed in Exhibit 3? A: That is not true. I have not authorised my grandson to give my consent for any renovations to be done. Q: Madam Rebecca, I put it to you that on the day Lukeman came to make payment to you, he indicated to you the defects in the property and asked that you renovate them before they pay you the money. A: That is not true. I am the owner of the house and I cannot ask another person to renovate same on my behalf. On the day of the payment, he said he was going to use the balance to fix the locks which he failed to do. I find from the evidence that plaintiff’s denial that she had given her approval to defendants to carry out the improvements made on the premises has been unshaken under cross examination and as a result plaintiff does not owe the defendant any compensation for the improvements made to the premises without her approval. ISSUE THREE I find from the evidence that after Lukeman paid the sum of GHC15,000.00 to plaintiff as rent for one year, there is no indication that defendant paid additional sums as rent for the period he continued to be in occupation of the premises. From the totality of the evidence before this court, I find that plaintiff has been able to prove her case on the preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as follows; 1. Plaintiff does not owe the defendant any compensation for the improvements made to her premises without her approval. 2. Defendant is ordered to pay rent arrears to the plaintiff from 15th October 2022 to the date of judgment at the rate of GHC1,400.00 per month. 3. Defendant is ordered to vacate from the premises the subject matter of this dispute and yield up vacant possession to the plaintiff for non-payment of rent pursuant to section 17(1) of Act 220 4. Defendant is ordered to pay utility bills outstanding if any prior to vacating from the premises. 5. Costs of GHC30,000.00 is awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. ................................................. H/W RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS.) (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE)