MENSAH AND OTHERS vs. YEBOAH [1965]DLHC1832

Date	1965-03-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1832

LASSEY J.

I. K. ABBAN FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. E. V. C. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1832
																																						<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" >MENSAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 101<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:
2 MARCH 1965.<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">

I. K. ABBAN FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. E. V. C. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.<o:p></o:p>Upon this
appeal coming before me for hearing and determination learned counsel for the
plaintiff-respondent argued a preliminary point of law that apart from the
fourth defendant whose appeal is properly before the court all the other
remaining defendants are not properly before the court as appellants because
they have not each signed the notice of appeal; learned counsel further
contended that a notice of appeal signed by one of the defendants on behalf of
the others is improper and irregular and cannot constitute a valid notice of appeal
by the said defendants. The plaintiff-respondent instituted this action against
the defendants alleging a wrongful act on their part in purporting to have
deposed the plaintiff as head of the late Kobina Ayi’s family, and
alternatively claiming £G100 damages from the defendants jointly and severally
for the alleged wrongful act.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
hearing evidence of the parties and their witnesses in a reserved judgment the
Awutu Local Court on 30 July 1963, found in favour of the plaintiff, and
awarded her £G75 as damages with costs to be taxed against all the defendants
jointly and severally. Against this judgment the fourth defendant, purporting
to be acting for himself and on behalf of the first, second, third, fifth,
sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and
fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth defendants, has appealed to this court by
filing the notice of intention to appeal dated 31 July 1963, and signed by the
fourth defendant for himself and the other defendants already mentioned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The right
to appeal from a judgment of a local court to the High Court is governed by the
Courts Act, 1960,1 and the procedure on appeal is governed by regulation 170
(3) of the Local Courts Procedure Regulations, 1962.2 By the wording of the
regulation every person or persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision
of a local court could appeal to this court by filing in the local court a
notice of intention to appeal. Counsel for the appellants has conceded to the
fact that the notice of appeal was in fact signed by the fourth defendant
purporting to have done so for himself and on behalf of the other defendants,
but argued that despite any apparent technical defect in the signing of the
notice of appeal as the notice of intention to appeal was signed by the fourth
defendant on behalf of the remaining appellants the said notice was regular in
form and in due compliance with the regulations, and therefore that the other
defendants are entitled to be heard as they would seem to be proper appellants
before this court in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An
examination of the cases decided under the operation of the former Native Court
Ordinances and Procedure Regulations which have since been replaced by the
Courts Act, 1960, and the Local Courts Procedure Regulations, 1962, seems to
show that where several parties have the same or common interest in a
subject-matter they can sue or be sued together, and one of those parties can
be authorised by the others to represent them and conduct the action on their
behalf. I am, however, of the opinion that once the action has been fought to a
conclusion and a judgment delivered against one or some or all of the several
parties, any aggrieved party or parties wanting to appeal therefrom must
himself or themselves have to sign the notice of intention to appeal because
the authority to represent ceases as soon as judgment is delivered; it may be
that a party against whom judgment has been delivered may wish to abide by the
decision and not to appeal against it. Therefore any would-be appellant or
appellants must sign the notice of his or their intention to appeal, and where
there are several would-be appellants each must himself sign the notice of the
intention to appeal. When the appeal is properly before the court and it is ascertained
who are the parties actually appealing authority may be given to one of the
would-be appellants to conduct the appeal on behalf of himself and the other
appellants. Representation during the conduct of a case or an appeal is
different from the representation for the purpose of preparing or lodging a
notice of appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
instant case there is n</main>