Reforming Ghana’s Rent Law: What A New Consolidated Rent Act Should Address

1. INTRODUCTION
The rent act has been with us for over sixty years. For most of that time, it has been the main law regulating the relationship between landlords and tenants in Ghana. However, anyone who has rented a room, dealt with advance rent or has followed closely the recent debates over student hostel fees will allude to the fact that the law has not worked as it should.

It is therefore not surprising that the Minister for Works, Housing and Water Resources, has announced that the government intends to bring a new Bill before the end of 2026 to substitute the old rent act and rent control law. The motive behind this initiative is to have a Consolidated Rent Act that actually reflects the current realities of the rental market.

This announcement is welcomed as it promises to significantly alter the present circumstances surrounding the rental market. However, it also raises a lot of salient questions. What exactly has failed in the present system? Why do problems like excessive advance rent, arbitrary increases and weak enforcement continue despite the existence of the law? And if parliament is going to pass a new Rent Act, what should it actually entail?

In this paper, I contend that simply repealing the existing law will not be enough and will not fully address the very problems the rental market is characterized with. The new Consolidated rent act should be able to confront the structural weaknesses that has rendered the existing law ineffective. These include the limited use of the rent assessment process under the existing law, the practice of demanding one or two years’ rent in advance, the unclear application of the law to private student hostels, the general lack of effective enforcement, just to mention but a few. Until these issues are properly addressed, any new legislation risks repeating the same problems under a different name. It is apt at this point to lay bare, the antecedent facts that motivated this article.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS
It would be recalled that in June 2026, the Honourable Minister for Works, Housing and Water resources informed Parliament that the government has begun a comprehensive review of Ghana’s rent laws. He explained that the existing framework, anchored on the Rent Act, 1963 (ACT 220) and the Rent Control Law, 1986, was outdated and no longer suited to the realities of the present housing market. According to the minister, the review is expected to lead to the repeal of these laws and their replacement with a modern Consolidated Rent Act before the end of 2026.

This announcement followed years of public sentiment and complaints about the rental market. Tenants have incessantly raised concerns about the widespread demand for one or two years’ rent in advance, sudden increases in rent and the difficulties associated with seeking redress. At the same time, landlords and investors often argue that high construction costs, financial challenges and weak enforcement make it difficult to operate within the existing laws.

The recent disputes over private student hostel fees further exposed the weaknesses of the current framework. The acting Rent Commissioner and head of the Rent Control Department, Mr. Frederick Opoku in a statement, dated 19th May, 2026, directed all private hostel owners, facility managers, operators and stake - holders within the student accommodation sector to place a “Temporal hold” on all or any intended or proposed increment in hostel accommodation fees for the 2026/2027 academic year until further notice.

These developments form the immediate background to the proposed reform. After more than sixty years of operating under the 1963 Act, the government has now committed itself to repealing the law entirely. I shall therefore proceed to tackle the substantive issues. I shall commence with the principal weaknesses of the existing rent law.

3. WEAKNESSES OF THE EXISTING RENT LAW

The Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220) was enacted to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants and to provide a framework for the assessment of recoverable rent. Section 1 of the Act provides that, subject to limited exceptions, the law shall apply to all premises in Ghana. In principle, therefore, the Act was intended to have wide coverage. More than sixty years later, however, several structural weaknesses continue to undermine its effectiveness.

First and foremost is the practice of demanding excessive advance rent. The primary objective of the law was to shield tenants from arbitrary and oppressive rental terms. However, the demand for one or two years' rent in advance actually defeats this objective and places an enormous burden on tenants, especially students, young workers and low-income families. This has persisted for long despite the clear prohibition in Section 25(5) of the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), which explicitly spells out that no landlord shall demand rent in advance for more than six months in respect of a tenancy of six months or more, and not more than one month in respect of a monthly tenancy.

Another major weakness has to do with the limited use of the rent assessment process. Under section 10 of Act 220, a landlord, tenant, or interested person may apply to the appropriate Rent Officer for the assessment of recoverable rent. Section 14 further expresses the matters to be taken into account in such an assessment. Nevertheless, in practice, this mechanism is often ignored. Many tenants are either unaware of the process or lack the confidence and resources to pursue it. Consequently, rents are often determined solely by the landlord, with little or no reference to the statutory framework.

Private student hostels, which now form a significant part of the urban rental market, have exposed difficulties in the practical enforcement of the Act, even though section 1 suggests that such premises generally fall within its scope. The recent attempts by the Rent Control Department to regulate hostel fees revealed both the need for oversight and the challenges of applying an old legal framework to contemporary rental arrangements.

Finally, there is the challenge of enforcement. The laws are there. They just have to be enforced. Even where obligations are clear, such as Section 20 which requires landlords to issue rent cards, compliance is inconsistent and sanctions are rarely applied.

This situation reflects what Keedy (1922) describes as an unenforced or symbolic law — a law which is formally in effect (de jure), but is usually (de facto) not enforced by the relevant jurisdiction, and thus has little practical consequence. This has actually birthed the assertion that the law only exists on paper.

I have stated the principal weaknesses of the existing law. Taken together, they explain why the current legal framework has failed in its quest to provide effective regulation of the rental market. Having identified the core problems, I will now proceed to examine what a new Consolidated Rent Act should address.

4. WHAT A NEW CONSOLIDATED RENT ACT SHOULD ADDRESS

If the government is serious about reforming the rent laws, then the new Consolidated Rent Act must do more than just replace the old one. It has to deal with the real problems that people face in the rental market.

The first issue is advance rent. For many tenants, especially students and young workers, the demand for one or two years’ rent upfront is still the biggest burden. The current law has not been able to stop this practice. Any new law that does not deal with it clearly and firmly will leave one of the worst features of the rental market untouched.

The second issue is the assessment of rent. The existing Act already allows a tenant or landlord to apply for the assessment of recoverable rent under section 10, and section 14 lists the factors that should be considered. In reality, very few people use this process. Most tenants either do not know about it or find it too difficult to pursue. A new law should make this process more practical and accessible. If it remains unused, then rents will continue to be decided almost entirely by landlords.

The third issue concerns private student hostels and other modern forms of accommodation. The recent disputes over hostel fees showed that there is still uncertainty about how the law applies in these cases. The new Act should make the position clearer so that both operators and students know where they stand.

Finally, there is the problem of enforcement. Even where the law is clear, such as the requirement under section 20 for landlords to issue rent cards, compliance is weak. A law that is not enforced properly is of little use to the people it is meant to protect. The new Consolidated Rent Act must therefore pay serious attention to enforcement, not just to the writing of new rules.

In the end, the success of the reform will not depend on how well the new law is drafted on paper. It will depend on whether it actually reduces the burden of advance rent, makes rent assessment usable, clears up uncertainty around modern rental arrangements, and improves enforcement. If it fails to do these things, then we may simply end up with a new law and the same old problems.

5. CONCLUSION
The decision to replace the Rent Act, 1963 and the Rent Control Law, 1986 is long overdue. For more than sixty years, the existing framework has struggled to deal effectively with the realities of Ghana’s rental market. Excessive advance rent remains common, the statutory process for assessing recoverable rent under Sections 10 and 14 is rarely used, enforcement is undoubtedly weak and newer forms of accommodation such as private student hostels have exposed further gaps in the law. The law imposes clear duties, such as Section 20 which requires landlords to issue rent cards. However, landlords have consistently failed to comply and always do so with impunity because sanctions are hardly applied.

Accordingly, Ghanaians should acknowledge that the proposed Consolidated Rent Act will only be meaningful if it confronts these problems directly. It must set clearer limits on advance rent, make the assessment process more accessible to ordinary tenants, provide greater clarity on the status of modern rental arrangements, and strengthen the machinery for enforcement.

At this point, I would borrow the words of Robert A. Heinlein and Martin Luther King Jr. In the words of Robert Heinlein, any law that is not enforced and can’t be enforced weakens all other laws. And as Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “The time is always right to do what is right.” The time to do what is right in our rental market is now.

What will matter in the long run is not merely that a new Consolidated Rent Act has been passed, but whether it brings relief to ordinary people in the rental market. If it does not make the system fairer and more predictable, then the reform would have achieved little.

Elijah Owusu
BSc Real Estate Student
Sunyani Technical University (STU)

REFERENCES

• Keedy, E. R. (1922). Administration of the Criminal Law. The Yale Law Journal, 31(3), 240–262.
• Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220).
• Rent Control Law, 1986.