Nyarkoa and Another v Asamoah (A9/60/24) [2025] GHADC 102 (3 June 2025)

Nyarkoa and Another v Asamoah (A9/60/24) [2025] GHADC 102 (3 June 2025)

The lease for the shop expired on 18th December 2023. The plaintiffs established that the premises were constructed and are reasonably required for their personal business use. Although the initial notice was short by two weeks, the rent officer’s subsequent order provided a sufficient six-month notice period. The defendant failed to prove entitlement to extension, refund, or injunction, and did not substantiate claims of improvements or harassment. The statutory requirements for ejectment were met.

Citation
[2025] GHADC 102
Parties
Plaintiff: Awo Nyarkoaa; Plaintiff: Richard Boateng; Defendant: Atta Asamoah Snr.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
A9/60/24
Procedural Posture
Civil Landlord and Tenant / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs’ claim for ejectment allowed; defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Tenancy Expiry, Notice Requirements, Counterclaim for Improvements, Recovery of Possession
Source Language
English
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Ejectment Tenancy Expiry Notice Requirements Counterclaim for Improvements Recovery of Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Awo Nyarkoaa

Plaintiff

Richard Boateng

Plaintiff

Atta Asamoah Snr.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Landlord and Tenant / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be ejected from the second shop
  2. 2 Whether the defendant expended money or incurred costs in making the shops habitable
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be restrained from renting out the frontage of defendant’s shops to food vendors and from harassing and ejecting the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The lease for the shop expired on 18th December 2023. The plaintiffs established that the premises were constructed and are reasonably required for their personal business use. Although the initial notice was short by two weeks, the rent officer’s subsequent order provided a sufficient six-month notice period. The defendant failed to prove entitlement to extension, refund, or injunction, and did not substantiate claims of improvements or harassment. The statutory requirements for ejectment were met.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs’ claim for ejectment allowed; defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to vacate the shop by 3rd July 2025 and hand over possession to plaintiffs.
  • Defendant to pay any arrears of rent including the one-month period granted.