DAVIES vs. RANDALL AND ANOTHER [1962]DLHC1421

Date	1962-01-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1421

CHARLES J.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN WITH HIM S. BAIDOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

F. A. WILLIAMS FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1421
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">DAVIES<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">RANDALL AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 1<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 8TH JANUARY, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

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

C.
F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN WITH HIM S. BAIDOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

F.
A. WILLIAMS FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

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

CHARLES J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
CHARLES J.<o:p></o:p>In this action the plaintiff in a representative capacity as heir
and successor of the late L. T. C. Davies and as the representative of the
other children of the said L. T. C. Davies, deceased instituted an action
against the defendant for:<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">(1) A declaration that the deed of sale executed on the 19th
January, 1953 between the first defendant and the administratrix Fanny Margaret
Davies, and also the subsequent lease executed between the first and second
defendants are both null and void, and for a rescission of both.<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">(2) £G1,500 as damages suffered as a result of the defendants
trespassing to the said land and, with the assistance of their servants and
agents, demolishing the building thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When this case came on for hearing Mr. Benjamin, counsel for the
plaintiff sought leave of the court to amend the statement of claim as appears
in the notice of proposed amendment filed. Mr. Williams opposed this
application on the ground that he proposed to take an objection in limine that
the plaintiff and those on whose behalf he brought the action have no locus
standi because the statement of claim failed to disclose that the plaintiff has
an interest in the estate of L.T.C. Davies deceased. I decided to hear argument
on the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Williams and rule thereon before
dealing with the application for the amendment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr. Williams submitted:<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">“1. That the intestate L.T.C. Davies was born in Sierra Leone in
1866 and was domiciled in Sierra Leone. He was lawfully married in Sierra Leone
on the 9th June, 1907 and he never changed his domicile though he lived and
died in Ghana in 1919. “2. As the plaintiffs are claiming to be children of the
deceased, according to Fante customary law they have no interest in their
father’s estate. Plaintiffs are contending that the marriage with their
respective mothers makes them legitimate according to Fante customary law. The
Statute of Distribution cannot be applied to marriage according to Fante customary
law in matters of succession or property and the only law applicable will be
the Fante customary law which is also the lex situs. See Sarbah’s Fanti
Customary Laws Ch. VII at pp. 100—102. The Statute of Distribution only applies
to marriages under the Ordinance or according to Christian rites.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr. Benjamin replied:<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">“Refers to par. 3 of the reply. Children of a native marriage are
legitimate although the marriage was polygamous. The children of the marriage
according to Fante customary law will be entitled to claim under the Statute of
Distribution when their father subsequently contracts a marriage under the
Sierra Leone Ordinance. Fante customary law is only invoked as regards the
marriage but not as regards succession. Mr. Benjamin concedes that the
intestate was born in Sierra Leone of parents who were natives of Sierra Leone
but he cannot say whether the intestate changed his domicile. The test for
determining the legitimacy of the plaintiff is the</main>