POBEE vs. ARHIN AND ANOTHER [1964]DLSC1944

Date	1964-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1944

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

OLLENNU JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

H. DARKOH FOR THE APPELLANT.

B.J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1944
																																						<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" >POBEE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ARHIN AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 40<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:
27 JANUARY 1964.<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">

H. DARKOH FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

SARKODEE-ADOO, OLLENNU AND BLAY JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Blay
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the judgment
of the Land Court, Cape Coast, presided over by S. A. Attoh, Esquire,
Commissioner of Assize and Civil Pleas, as he then was, whereby he dismissed
the plaintiff’s claim to have set aside the sale of a piece of land to the
fourth defendant by the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, now appellant, claimed that he is the head of the heritable blood of
chief Kweku Arhin I, Twidan family of Cape Coast. He alleges that the piece of
land sold by the first defendant (now respondent) to the fourth defendant, was
the self-acquired property of late chief Kweku Arhin I and that as the said
chief died intestate the land became the family property of the heritable blood
members of his family. The said land had been sold by the first appellant to
the fourth defendant (now second appellant) without the knowledge and consent
of the plaintiff or any of the immediate heritable blood members of chief Kweku
Arhin I, by a deed of conveyance dated 27 October 1956. Wherefor the appellant
claimed that the contract of sale be set aside on the ground that the said
contract of sale was null and void by customary law. This claim by the
appellant was resisted by the respondents on the following main grounds:<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 appellant is not the head of the heritable blood of chief Kweku Arhin I;
further that the said chief Kweku Arhin I had no family at Cape Coast except
his relations born and domiciled at Cape Coast.<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) That
the first respondent being the occupant of the family stool of chief Kweku
Arhin I is also the head of the Cape Coast section of the family.<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) That
all the members of the family of late chief Kweku Arhin I owe allegiance to the
occupant of the principal stool at Mumford.<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">(4) That
chief Kweku Arhin I having died intestate whatever property he acquired while
on the stool and not earmarked as private property, became stool property after
his death, and came directly under the control of his successors on the stool.<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">(5) That
the first respondent being the occupant of the family stool at Cape Coast, had
the right with the consent of the principal members of the family, to sell the
land to meet family commitments.<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">(6) That
the sale of the land was in accordance with the requirement of customary law
and therefore not liable to be set aside.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
hearing of the summons for directions, the following issues were agreed upon:<o:p></o:p>(1)
Whether the plaintiff (appellant) is the present head of the heritable blood of
chief Kweku Arhin I Twidan Family of Cape Coast.<o:p></o:p>(2)
Whether the said contract of sale was entered into by the defendants
(respondents) with the consent of the immediate blood of chief Kweku Arhin I,
or not.<o:p></o:p>(3)
Whether the said contract of sale is null and void</main>