Rental experiences, tears 3

Our lawyers proceeded to file the case, and a court summons was duly served on the tenant.

By this point, the matter had formally entered the judicial system.

Expectations were clear.

Dates were set. Costs were incurred.

We prepared ourselves mentally for what we assumed would now be a structured and decisive process.

The day of the hearing arrived.

We were present in court with our lawyer, ready to proceed.

The tenant did not show up.

Instead, his lawyer appeared and addressed the court.

The explanation offered was unexpected, to say the least.

We were informed that the tenant was unwell and could not attend because he had developed a boil in his armpit.

Yes, those were the exact words presented before the court.

The lawyer then pleaded with the court to adjourn the matter by almost a month.

In that moment, something became painfully clear.

This was no longer about illness, misunderstanding, or even resolution.

It was about time.

Time being used as a tool.

Time that translated directly into financial loss for us, while the tenant remained in occupation without paying rent.

After the proceedings concluded that day, we had a sober conversation with our legal team.

We began to sense that the judicial system itself might delay us.

Rather than allow the court process to be used as a delay mechanism, we instructed our lawyers to withdraw the case and return to the original administrative route, Rent Control, where the matter had first been advised.

We formally discontinued the case and transferred it to Rent Control with a discontinuance letter from the court. Rent Control issued a letter to the East Legon Hills Police for service on the tenant.

A summons was issued once again, and the tenant was formally notified.

The Rent Control hearing date arrived. Once again, the tenant did not appear.

This time, he sent his personal assistant.

There was no authority to make decisions.

No capacity to resolve the matter.

Just enough presence to secure another adjournment.

During the hearing, his PA produced a message on his phone allegedly from their lawyer stating that they had now taken us to court.

This development immediately changed the tone of the proceedings.

The Rent Control supervisor advised that the matter be returned to court, explaining that parallel proceedings could not continue simultaneously and that the court had the power to sanction such conduct, including contempt.

Once again, we prepared for court, time, resources, and emotional energy expended all over again.

The hearing date arrived.

This time, the tenant was no longer a defendant. He was now the plaintiff.

And yet he did not show up.

At that point, the pattern was impossible to ignore.

What was unfolding was not a pursuit of justice or clarity.

It was a calculated cycle of appearance and disappearance, filings and absences, each step designed to stretch time, drain resources, and exhaust resolve.

What we still did not know was how far this strategy would go, or how many institutions would eventually become involved before possession could finally be recovered.

The writer is the CEO, Credence Real Estate and Asset Management.