Startmark Limited, a tenant of Accra Mall Limit­ed, has filed a suit at the high court over attempts to compel it to file and declare its monthly turnovers.

Also joined in the suit is Broil Ghana Limited, Managers of Accra Mall.

According to the ten­ants, the management was trying to introduce draconian terms which operate in South Africa, contrary to the provisions of the Rent Act of Ghana.

The writ, filed at the court by Lawyers for the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the request by the defendants for the plaintiff to file and declare the monthly turnovers was unlawful.

The plaintiff (Startmark Limited), aside costs including legal fees, are praying the court to per­petually restrain the defen­dants from requesting fig­ures for the monthly turnovers.

Lawyers for the plain­tiff also want a declaration that the notice of eviction dated October 6, 2015, jointly issued by the defen­dants, was null and void.

The plaintiff is seeking a further order restraining the defendants from taking any further action whatso­ever with the aim of evict­ing or obstructing its busi­ness activities in the Mall pending the determination of the suit.

Statement of Claim

In their statement of claim filed for and on behalf of the plaintiff, the lawyers said their client was currently an occupant of two of the shops at the Mall with numbers G08 and G38 for Swatch watch­es/ Levis and TM Lewin respectively.

It said Accra Mall, by a letter dated August 31, 2012, offered shop number G38 to the plaintiff for its TM Lewin brand which the plaintiff accepted on Sep­tember 31, same year.

The statement averred that the plaintiff occupied the facility and started trading in it after paying the rent, service charge, marketing fund and other ancillary charges as required by the defendants.

It further said the defendants forwarded the proposed lease agreement for review and execution but plaintiff realised that the defendants had insert­ed a clause which compulsorily required it to declare and file to the defendants its monthly turnovers.

Stalemate

The plaintiff's lawyers indicated that the " plain till refused to sign the lease agreement in view of the defendants' refusal to delete the turnover clause upon a request by the plaintiff. Due to the stale­mate, the lease agreement was never executed, although the plaintiff con­tinues to make yearly rent payments on quarterly basis in advance in addi­tion to service charges," which they claim had been accepted by the defen­dants till date.

The plaintiff contended that it had made several efforts to reach out to the defendants in order to resolve the impasse to no avail.

The statement insisted that on October 6, 2015 the defendants jointly issued eviction notice to the plaintiff in respect of shop G38, stating that the plain­tiff should vacate the shop on or before October 30 and hand over the premis­es to the central manage­ment.

Injunction

Meanwhile, a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is expected to be moved by the lawyers for the plaintiff on Friday October 30, 2015 to restrain the defendants from eject­ing the plaintiff until the determination of the suit before the court.