BUSUMAKURA II AND OTHERS vs. YANKUM [1965]DLSC1791

Date	1965-05-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1791

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

PUPLAMPU FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1791
																																						<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" >BUSUMAKURA II AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>YANKUM <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 345<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:
10 MAY 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">

PUPLAMPU FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

MILLS-ODOI, OLLENNU AND SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The respondent,
the plaintiff in the court below, claimed against the appellants, hereinafter
called the defendants, an amount of £G4,139 16s. 6d. due on three notes 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">(a)
£G1,663 16s. Od. on a promissory note dated 14 July 1955,<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">(b)
£G1,560 due on a promissory note dated 31 January 1958, and<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">(c) £G916
Os. 6d. due under a commission note dated 21 August 1953.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>His claim
on the third note was dismissed as one based upon past consideration; but those
in respect of the first and second notes were allowed.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants have appealed against the judgment in respect of the first two
claims on a number of grounds which may be summarised 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">(1) The
plaintiff failed to prove that he did pay the amount mentioned in the two
notes,<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) The
description of the defendants in the title of the suit is not enough to show
that they were sued in a representative capacity,<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) the
plaintiff failed to prove that the loans were taken upon the authority of the
elders of the Takoradi stool, whose consent and concurrence is required to bind
the stool, and<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) The
trial judge misdirected himself on the principle in Bonsi v. Adjena II1 in not
considering the evidence of custom given on behalf of the defence as to the
circumstances in which a stool alone may be bound by the acts of its elders.<o:p></o:p>As to the
first point it must be observed that the action is upon promissory notes, which
at the relevant date were regulated by the Bills of Exchange Ordinance,2 now
repealed. Section 84 (1) of the Ordinance defined a promissory note, and
section 90 (1) provided that, “Subject to the provisions in this Part, and
except as by this section provided, the provisions of this Ordinance relating
to bills of exchange apply, with the necessary modifications, to promissory
notes.” Again, section 30 (1) of the Ordinance provided that, “Every party
whose signature appears on a bill is prima facie deemed to have become a party
thereto for value,” while section 89 provided that:<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">“The
maker of a promissory note by making it – <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) engages
that he will pay it according to its tenor; <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) Is
precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee,
and his then capacity to endorse.”<o:p></o:p>