Royal Investment Company Vrs Quarcoopome & Anor [2021] GHASC 132 (1 December 2021)

Royal Investment Company Vrs Quarcoopome & Anor [2021] GHASC 132 (1 December 2021)

Sections 29 and 30 of NRCD 175 do not apply to leases expired by effluxion of time; failure to exercise an option to renew is not a breach of condition but a failure to accept an offer for a new lease, and does not require notice or trigger relief against forfeiture. The Court of Appeal erred in holding otherwise.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 132
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/respondent: Royal Investment Company; Defendant/applicant/appellant/appellant: Madam Ruth Quarcooppome; Defendant/applicant/appellant/appellant: Madam Anna O. Quarcooppome
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Renewal, Forfeiture, Re Entry, Relief Against Forfeiture, Statutory Tenancy, Option to Renew, Interpretation of Statutes
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Equity Lease Renewal Forfeiture Re Entry Relief Against Forfeiture Statutory Tenancy +2 more

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Investment Company

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/respondent

Madam Ruth Quarcooppome

Defendant/applicant/appellant/appellant

Madam Anna O. Quarcooppome

Defendant/applicant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 29 and 30 of the Conveyancing Act (NRCD 175) apply to a lease expired by effluxion of time and not renewed
  2. 2 Whether failure to exercise an option to renew constitutes a breach of condition requiring notice under section 29 of NRCD 175

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 29 and 30 of NRCD 175 do not apply to leases expired by effluxion of time; failure to exercise an option to renew is not a breach of condition but a failure to accept an offer for a new lease, and does not require notice or trigger relief against forfeiture. The Court of Appeal erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Court of Appeal decision set aside to the extent it applied sections 29 and 30 of NRCD 175 to the facts; respondent not entitled to relief against forfeiture or renewal of lease.