A familiar problem arises in many tenancy arrangements across Ghana. The roof begins to leak during the rainy season. The walls develop cracks. A portion of the plumbing fails. The tenant calls the landlord expecting the damage to be fixed. The landlord, however, insists that the tenant should handle the repairs.
The tenancy agreement says nothing about repairs. So the question becomes a simple but important one, when a lease agreement contains no express provision on repairs, who bears the responsibility for fixing the premises?
The traditional common law position
The traditional common law answer may surprise many tenants. Historically, once a landlord granted possession of premises to a tenant, responsibility for the condition of the property largely shifted to the tenant.
This principle was firmly expressed in Robbins v Jones, a 19th Century English case. The court held that a landlord was not generally responsible for keeping premises in repair during the tenancy unless the landlord had expressly agreed to do so.
In the absence of fraud or a contractual undertaking, the tenant accepted the premises in the condition in which they were let.
The rule was later affirmed in Cavalier v Pope, where the UK House of Lords famously observed that there was “no law against letting a tumbledown house.” So, if a tenant wished to ensure that the landlord would repair the property, the obligation had to be clearly stated in the contract. In effect, silence in the lease traditionally worked against the tenant.
What Counts as “Repair”?
Even where a lease contains a covenant requiring a tenant to keep the premises in “good and tenantable repair,” the courts have made it clear that the obligation is not as demanding as it may initially appear.
In Ashley v James Colledge (Cocoa) Ltd, the High Court explained that tenantable repair does not mean bringing the premises to a perfect or modern condition. The real question is whether, having regard to the age, character and locality of the property, the premises remain reasonably fit for occupation by a reasonable tenant.
Therefore, a house that shows signs of age may therefore still satisfy the requirement of tenantable repair if it remains habitable and reasonably usable.
After all, the duty to repair is not a licence to redesign or fundamentally alter the property. Its object is simply to preserve the premises in a serviceable state, not to transform them into something entirely different.
The Position under Ghana’s Land and Rent Legislation
Under Ghanaian law, two important statutes frame the legal background of landlord–tenant relations: the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) and the Rent Act, 1960 (Act 220).
The Land Act implies several covenants into lease agreements made for valuable consideration. These include assurances by the landlord that the tenant will enjoy the premises without interruption or disturbance, as well as obligations on the tenant such as the payment of rent and the avoidance of unauthorized alterations to the property.
Interestingly, however, the Act does not expressly impose a general duty on either the landlord or the tenant to repair the premises.
What the statute does address is the extent of damages where a repair obligation already exists, whether by express agreement or otherwise. The law provides that where a party breaches a covenant to repair, the damages recoverable cannot exceed the amount by which the value of the landlord’s property interest has been harmed by the failure to repair.
The Rent Act also does not create a general implied duty on landlords to carry out repairs. What the Act does instead is to protect tenants from certain forms of pressure or harassment by landlords.
In particular, the Act makes it an offence for a person to act, or fail to act, in a manner required by the terms of the tenancy with the intention of compelling a tenant to surrender possession of the premises. In practice, this means that this means that where the nature of the tenancy requires a landlord to undertake certain maintenance or repairs, a deliberate refusal to do so for the purpose of forcing the tenant to vacate the property may attract criminal liability under the Act.
The Ghanian Reality
Many tenancy agreements are informal. Some are oral. Even where written agreements exist, the question of repair obligations is often left unaddressed. Tenants commonly assume that landlords will undertake major repairs because the premises ultimately belong to them.
Landlords, on the other hand, may take the view that once possession has been granted, maintenance becomes the tenant’s responsibility.
When disputes arise, both parties may be surprised to discover that the law offers no straightforward answer where the contract is silent.
Legal scholars and commentators alike have long observed that there is little justification for this sharp divergence between the law and the reasonable expectations of the public in landlord and tenant relations.
A Possible Direction for Reform
Looking at tenancy in Ghana, it’s worth asking whether the law should evolve. Responsibility for repairs could reflect the type of tenancy: tenants might handle more in long-term leases, while landlords take on most duties in short or periodic arrangements, since the property ultimately remains theirs.
Perhaps, we can also learn from the UK. There, a strict approach once left tenants largely on their own, but later laws, like the Housing Act of the 1930s, made landlords responsible for keeping premises reasonably fit for human habitation. Ghana might consider a similar approach.
The Practical Lesson for Parties
For now, the best protection is clarity in the lease. Landlords and tenants should spell out who handles structural repairs, plumbing, electrical issues, and general maintenance. A few lines upfront can prevent a lot of disputes later.
