Dear Lawyer, the current law regulating the relationship landlord and tenant is the Rent Act, Act 220, 1963 and the Conveyancing Act, 1973, NRCD 175.
The law allows landlords to give their premises to prospective tenants at reasonable rates agreed between the parties.
Once the relationship is established, the law provides limited grounds under which the landlord may recover possessions of the premises. This is contained in Section 17 (1) of Act 220.
One of the key grounds that one must establish is that the tenant has not paid his rent to the landlord and the rent has been outstanding for one month or more after the date on which it became lawfully due.
There have been differences in opinion among judges on the applicability of this ground.
One school of thought says, if the only reason for taking your tenant to court is for non-payment of rent, and before an order is made by the court for the rent to be paid to you or into the court, the tenant must be given relief and therefore cannot be ejected.
The case supporting this position is the High Court Case of Ocansey V Teiko (1973) 1 GLR 203. Here, the plaintiff, a landlord, sued for arrears of rent and an order for ejectment.
Even though the defendant, before the delivery of judgement, paid into the court the whole amount representing the arrears of rent, and the costs, the trial magistrate ordered the defendant the vacate the premises.
The defendant appealed. It was held that since the defendant had paid into the court the costs and all the arrears of rent, he was entitled to relief against forfeiture and therefore could not be ejected.
Another school of thought, however, says if you fail to pay your rent and legal proceedings are started against you to recover possession, you will lose your right and any protection even if you pay the rent in course of the court case.
This school of thought is supported by the High Court Case of Gyato V Pipim, (1980) GLR 71.
In that case, Pipim brought an action for an order of ejection against Gyato, under section17 (1) (a) of Act 220 for non-payment of rent.
Before the commencement of the hearing, Gyato paid up all the arrears of rent leaving only the mesne profits outstanding.
It was held under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) s. 17 (1) (a) the landlord’s right to commence proceedings for recovery of possessions or ejectment for non-payment of rent accrued to him where any rent lawfully due from the tenant had not been paid or tendered within one month after the date on which it became lawfully due.
Once this cause of action has accrued to the landlord and he had commenced proceedings for recovery of possession or ejectment, the subsequent payment or tendering to the lessor or landlord of the arrears of rent claimed by writ did not abate the cause of action.
The court, further, held that the harshness of the law was, mitigated by a discretion granted the court by section 17(3) which bestowed on a magistrate or judge for the payment by the tenant of arrears of rent, mesne profits and such other sums as the magistrate or judge deemed fit had been complied with.
