SOLOMON vs. ACKON [1959]DLHC1955

Date	1959-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC1955

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN HOLDING BRIEF FOR R. S. BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. B. SHORT FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1959]DLHC1955
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SOLOMON<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ACKON <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 1<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
25 JUNE 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, HOLDING BRIEF FOR R. S.
BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. B. SHORT FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>The appeal
is against a judgment of the District Magistrate, Cape Coast (E. T. Aryee,
Esq.), hereinafter referred to shortly as the magistrate, whereby, after
rejecting the appellant’s plea that the claim was barred by the Limitation Act,
1623,1 he upheld the respondent’s claim for, “The sum of £G68 9s. 2d. being
goods [sold] and net cash [advanced] as per notes of hand.” The suit and the
ensuing appeal raise the vexed and difficult question as to when a transaction
between aborigines of the country may properly be held to be governed by native
customary law and when it may properly be held not to be governed by customary
law but rather exclusively by English law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
general law is of course set out in section 87 (1) of the Courts Ordinance2;
but it is in the application of the provisions of that section that the
difficulty often arises, as it has done in this case. The respondent claimed to
have the suit placed on the “Undefended List,” and in his supporting affidavit,
without setting out the circumstances of the alleged sale of the goods or the
making of the cash advances or both, which have given rise to this claim, he
merely alleged, as set out in his writ, that the amount claimed was “for goods
and net cash as per notes of hand” and be then annexed copies of the two notes.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant in his affidavit of defence denied liability for the amount claimed,
and alleged that the notes should have been given up long ago as the amounts
therein stated had been paid. He then further pleaded that in any event the claim
was barred by the Limitation Act, 1623.3 When the suit was thereupon placed on
the “General List” and came up for trial, the material evidence of the
respondent was as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“I am a
retired storekeeper of the U.A.C . . . I have known the defendant for about 36
years. I travelled with the defendant to the United Kingdom in 1924 to attend
Wembley Exhibition. From the United Kingdom we went to Germany to Hamburg. In
February 1925 defendant asked me to help him with an amount of £G55 1s. 2d. I
gave him that amount. Defendant gave me a note to evidence the transaction.
This is the note (exhibit A). Before giving this amount to defendant I had
previously given him goods: cement and cash, to the amount of £G13 8s. and the
defendant gave me an I.O.U. on 27 February 1925 to cover the amount (exhibit
B). A week after giving the amount to defendant I sailed for this country. A
month later defendant also sailed for this country and when I demanded the
amount defendant said he was going to sell silk headkerchiefs to pay. Defendant
did not pay and about the same time I had an immediate transfer to Obuasi.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s version of the matter was as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“I am a
trader and I live in Sekondi and I know plaintiff. In 1925 we met at Hamburg in
Germany. There was a business transaction between us and I gave him the two
I.O.Us. I returned to Sekondi one month after plaintiff had left. Plaintiff
came to meet me at old Sekondi harbour. We went to my house and there I told
defendant that I would pay him the money. A week later I paid the money and
Ackon gave me a receipt for it. My house got burnt in 1942 so I cannot produce
the receipt. Plaintiff stayed with me at Sekondi for ten years before he was
transferred to Obuasi. During those ten years he never demanded the money. He
never wrote to me about it.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
evidence of the parties set out supra, it will be observed that no more
detailed evidence was forthcoming from either party as to the circumstances of
or surrounding the making of the transactions evidenced by the notes exhibits A
and B than that which appear on the face of the notes; and that in so far as it
was the respondent’s duty to prove his claim, he undoubtedly submitted and
relied on nothing more </main>