YARTEY AND OKO vs. CONSTRUCTION AND FURNITURE (WEST AFRICA) LTD. [1962]DLSC1754

Date	1962-02-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1754

VAN LARE JSC

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

CRABBE J.S.C.

E. AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANTS.

H. V. FRANKLIN WITH HIM E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENTS.

KOI LARBI FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS.

[1962]DLSC1754
																																						<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:#548DD4">YARTEY AND OKO <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:#548DD4">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:#548DD4">CONSTRUCTION AND FURNITURE (WEST AFRICA) LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 86<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"> 19TH FEBRUARY, 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">

E.
AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

H.
V. FRANKLIN WITH HIM E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

KOI
LARBI FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

VAN LARE, ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND
CRABBE, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>[His lordship narrated the facts as set out in the headnote and
continued:] From the pleadings there emerged as the main issues between the
appellants and the first and second respondents (the original defendants and
the registered trustees) the following:<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) Whether the appellants were entitled, or had any right to sue
in the representative capacity in which they sued;<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) whether the first respondents’ admitted entry on a portion of
the land was or was not unlawful; and whether in making entry they did the acts
complained of in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim, namely, laid waste
farms;<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">(3) Whether or not the appellants had usufructuary rights over the
land according to native customary law, and whether, if they had, any
alientation without their consent was not void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As between the appellants and the third respondent, i.e. the
Onamrokor Adain family the main issue was whether the third respondent was
entitled or not to grant to the first respondents the right of ingress and
egress along the narrow strip of land used as a road across the Apenkwa land.<o:p></o:p>In respect of the first issue as to the appellants’ right to sue,
the learned trial judge’s conclusions were expressed in the following terms:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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 not satisfied with the case for the plaintiffs of their
authority to bring this action for themselves and on behalf of the Apenkwa
Community. There had been no conclusive proof of the plaintiffs’ authority. The
evidence is conclusive that not all of the Christian inhabitants of Apenkwa are
the followers of the plaintiffs in bringing this action. The onus fell on the
plaintiffs to prove adequately their authority to sue in this action in a representative
capacity, and I find as a fact that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the court
that they have been duly authorised. It is for me to consider the evidence
which had been tendered in that regard, and I formed the conclusion after
hearing the evidence of third party that the plaintiffs have not the full
authority of the unhabitants of Apenkwa. The first plaintiff failed to prove
that he is the head of the Apenkwa community. The evidence showed clearly that
the head is usually elected by the Christian community and then he is presented
to the church and if he is approved of by the church he is given blessing and
installed as head of the community. The first plaintiff had admitted that he
had not been installed as yet as head. Therefore hold that he is not the head
of the Christian Community of Apenkwa since he has not been installed by the
custom and regulations of the Christian congregation and inhabitants of Apenkwa
... and therefore has no locus standi in this action as a plaintiff against the
defendants; and they the plaintiffs, are not the proper persons to sue. The
second plaintiff gave no evidence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant</main>