DOTWAAH AND ANOTHER vs. AFRIYIE [1965]DLSC1798

Date	1965-04-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1798

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.

VICTOR OWUSU (WITH HIM R. ABOAGYE) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

D. S. EFFAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLSC1798
																																						<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" >DOTWAAH AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AFRIYIE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 257<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:
12 APRIL 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">

VICTOR OWUSU (WITH HIM R. ABOAGYE) FOR THE
APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

D. S. EFFAH 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from a judgment of Apaloo J., as he then was, delivered in the High
Court, Kumasi. The first appellant, the first defendant in the court below, had
mortgaged the cocoa farm, the subject-matter of the suit, to the second
appellant, the second defendant in the court below, and the claim of the
respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is 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">(a) A
declaration that the farm in dispute is family property,<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) A
declaration that the mortgage of the farm is void and of no effect,<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) An order
for recovery of possession, 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">(d) An
order upon the second defendant to account for the proceeds of the farm from
the date of his entry into possession of the farm to the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
parties are agreed that the farm in dispute was the self-acquired property of
one Kwaku Addo who died in or about 1947 intestate and is, therefore, by
customary law the property of his family, which is a matrilineal family, Kwaku
Addo being an Akan. It is also agreed that there are no descendants of Kwaku
Addo’s maternal grandmother living; by custom, therefore, the immediate family
for purposes of succession in such a case would be all descendants in the
direct female line of the next known ancestress of Kwaku Addo, and the wider
family would be all descendants in the direct female line of the remotest known
ancestress of Kwaku Addo.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
also not in dispute that the plaintiff and those she represents were not
consulted in the granting of the mortgage by the first defendant to the second
defendant; and also that when the negotiations for the mortgage came to her
knowledge, the plaintiff vehemently protested against it and warned the second
defendant against concluding the transaction, but he treated her warning with
contempt.<o:p></o:p>Upon
these undisputed facts, the legal position would be 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">(i) if
the plaintiff and those on behalf of whom she sued are proved to be the only
persons who constitute the immediate family of Kwaku Addo, the mortgage is void
ab initio.<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">(ii) if
the plaintiff and those on behalf of whom she sued, together with the first
defendant and others who concurred in the mortgage are shown to form the
immediate family, but that the plaintiff is the successor to Addo in accordance
with customary law, then the mortgage without her, the successor’s
(plaintiff’s) consent, is again void ab initio, 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">(iii) if
the plaintiff and those on behalf of whom, she sued, together with the first
defendant and those who joined with him to grant the mortgage are shown to be
the principal members of Addo’s immediate family, but that the first defendant
is the successor to Addo, then the mortgage so granted is voidable only, and
may be set aside at the instance of the plaintiff and the others if they act
timeously.<o:p></o:p>