Selasie v Bonsu (A9/26/2024) [2024] GHADC 746 (18 December 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT BAATSONAA ON WEDNESDAY THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MABEL N. L. AHELE DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A9/26/2024 KING PRIEST SELASIE ------- PLAINTIFF VRS ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU ------- DEFENDANT ________________________________________________________________ PARTIES: PLAINTIFF PRESENT DEFENDANT PRESENT JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiff by a writ of summons filed on 21st June, 2024 claimed an order for ejectment against the Defendant from his premises for his personal use. 2. Plaintiff’s Case It is Plaintiff’s case that he wants the premises for use by his child. According to him, he served a three-month notice to the Defendant but the Defendant has refused to leave the premises. He thereafter reported the matter to the Rent Control Department. In his testimony, he stated that the three months extension given to the Defend- ant was without rent, supporting his testimony by tendering in evidence Ex- hibit ‘A’ containing the tenancy agreement. The Plaintiff further stated that, he Page 1 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT added another month extension when the Defendant informed him of the pass- ing of his mother. He thereafter reported the matter to the Rent Control Depart- ment and an agreement was concluded that the Defendant vacates the premises on 21st May 2024 but the Defendant reneged on the agreement. He tendered in evidence Exhibit ‘B’ containing the agreement concluded at the Rent Control Department. He testified both under his evidence-in-chief and cross-examina- tion that he requires the premises for use by his child. 3. Defendant’s Case The Defendant, in his Statement of Defence filed on 7th October, 2024, stated that he initially rented the two-bedroom apartment at a monthly rent of GH₵650.00 for the period of two (2) years which expired on 24th August, 2022. He subsequently renewed the agreement for another one year which also ex- pired in August 2023. It was his case that when he lost his mother after the expiration of the last agreement, he pleaded with the Plaintiff to give him four (4) months to stay and pay the rent for the four (4) months but the Plaintiff gave him one month without rent. He testified that, the Plaintiff wants to eject him from his premises only for one reason and the reason is a dispute over payment of water bills. According to him, the Plaintiff does not provide the actual bills when they fall due which has generated a dispute for him and other tenants. 4. The Defendant counter-claimed as follows; a) An order for the Plaintiff to provide document evidence of all water bills and clarify the charges he has imposed on the Defendant and other tenants. b) An order for the Plaintiff to rescind his decision of evicting the Defendant. c) Protection from further harassment and unjust actions such as unauthorised dis- connections of utilities or other forms of harassment from the plaintiff. Page 2 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT d) Any other reliefs this Honourable Court may deem fit. 5. Issues for Determination 1) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order by the Court and recov- ery of possession of the premises in dispute. 2) Whether or not the Defendant is entitled to his reliefs. 6. Evidential Burden Sections 11(4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provide that the burden of proof on a party in a civil suit should be on a balance of probabilities. In ADWUBENG V. DOMFEH [1996-97] SCGLR, the Supreme Court held that in all civil actions, the standard of proof is proof by the preponderance of prob- abilities, and there is no exception to that rule. Also, in the case of YORKWA V. DUAH [1992-93] GBR 281, the Court of Ap- peal decision per Brobbey J.A. (as he then was) stated that: “The provisions of the Evidence Decree, NRCD 323, require that in a case like the instant one, the obligation to adduce evidence should first be placed on the plaintiff”. Section 12(1) also states that “except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by preponderance of the probabilities” As the Defendant in this case counter-claimed, he bears the same evidential burden as the Plaintiff, on the facts he asserts. See MALM V. LUTTERODT [1963] 1 GLR 1. 7. Under what Circumstance will this Court grant an order for eviction? Section 17(1) of the Rent Act, 19 (Act 202) provides for the circumstances under which an order against a tenant for recovery of the possession of, or ejectment from, shall be made by the Court. At least one of the circumstances must be satisfied. These include Page 3 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT non-payment of rent, subletting without the consent of the landlord, recovery of pos- session of the premises by the landlord for his or her own use or for use by a member of his/her family. 8. Evaluation of Evidence The Plaintiff in proving his case testified that, he requires the premises for his child. He served notice to the Defendant to vacate and allowed the Defendant to stay in the premises for four (4) months without the payment of rent. The Plaintiff testified both under evidence-in-chief and cross-examination that he required the house for use by his child. As outlined in BOATENG V DWIN- FOUR [1979] GLR 360, for recovery of premises for personal use: “a) The landlord must be able to demonstrate that a bona fide need for the prop- erty for their occupation or that of their spouse, children, or parents. b) The landlord must have served a notice to quit on the tenant by the provisions of the Rent Act. c) The landlord must have allowed the tenant to contest the claim for possession, and d) The tenant must have no valid defence to the claim for possession”. 9. The Defendant in his own testimony corroborated Plaintiff testimony on the service of notice to quit and the extension of time to remain in possession of premisses after the expiration of his tenancy. 10. The Defendant in his defence stated that the reasons why the Plaintiff is seeking an order for his eviction from the premisses is because of dispute over water bills. He also requested for protection from harassment from the Plaintiff. It must be born in mind that, the Defendant per his counter-claim bears the bur- den of proof on the facts he asserts on. He failed to adduce any evidence in support of his assertion. His claims are dismissed. Page 4 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT 11. The Defendant in his defence, however, requested the Court to grant him time till 2025 to vacate the premises and that he was ready pay rent for that duration. 12. I find that the Plaintiff requires the premisses for use by his child and therefore is entitled to an order for recovery of possession of the premises. 13. The Court hereby enters judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is ordered to give up vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff on or be- fore 30th January, 2025. 14. If the agreement concluded at the Rent Control Department was to the effect that the Defendant vacates the premises on 21st May 2024 but reneged on the agreement and stayed in the premises from then till now without the payment of rent to the Plaintiff, then he owes arrears of rent to be paid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, from 21st May 2024 to 30th January, 2025 will be eight (8) months. If the monthly rent is GH₵650.00 as stated by the Defendant himself, then the Defendant owes the Plaintiff a rent of GH₵5,200.00. 15. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay a rent arears of GH₵5,200.00 to the Plaintiff. 16. In conclusion, judgment is entered as follows; a) The Defendant is ordered to give up vacant possession of the premises to the Plaintiff on or before 30th January, 2025. b) The Defendant is ordered to pay a rent arears of GH₵ 5,200.00 to the Plain- tiff. 17. A cost of GH₵ 500.00 is awarded in favour of Plaintiff. H/W MABEL N. L. AHELE (MAGISTRATE) Page 5 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT 18/12/2024 Page 6 of 6 18-12-2024 KING PRIEST SELASSIE V. ALEXANDER OSEI BONSU - JUDGMENT