VANDERPUYE vs. GOLIGHTLY AND OTHERS [1965]DLSC1860

Date	1965-06-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1860

MILLS-ODOI JSC

APALOO JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1965]DLSC1860
																																						<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" >VANDERPUYE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GOLIGHTLY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 453<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:
14 JUNE 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">

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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, APALOO AND SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of Ollennu J. (as he then was) dated 27 November
1961. By that judgment, the court declared a piece of land situate at
Adadainkpo and fully described in the writ, as the self-acquired property of
the late Odartey Golightly and that a lease of this land granted by the late
Kojo Golightly was void and of no effect. The court also ordered in favour of
the plaintiffs, who are the children of the said Odartey Golightly, recovery of
possession of the said land. The facts of this case have no unusual features
and I will relate them briefly in order that the complaint which is made
against the judgment appealed from may be seen in its right focus. The
Golightly family seem to have hailed from Sempe in Ga Mashi where they owned a
family house. The evidence shows that on a date prior to 1917, that house was
mortgaged by the family to a firm known as J. J. Fisher &amp; Co. It is perhaps
not an unreasonable conjecture that the house was mortgaged to secure one of
the members of the family in business. It would seem that that person fell into
debt and the mortgagees took steps to realise the security by the sale of the
house. To forestall this, the Golightly family themselves sold the house and
utilised part of the proceeds in paying off the debt. The balance of the
purchase price remained, indubitably, family property. The head of the family
at that time was the late Odartey Golightly and he appears to have had the
custody of this money. There is evidence that he shared this money among
various members of the family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
seem that not long after the disposal of the family house, some sections of the
family removed to Adadainkpo, another quarter of Accra, where Odartey had
himself built a house. In July 1917, Odartey purchased from a Mr. Joseph
Bossman, a piece of land at Adadainkpo. That land is the subject-matter of the
present dispute. The sale was evidenced by a deed of conveyance executed in his
favour by the said Bossman (exhibit 1). The land was apparently undeveloped
until Odartey’s death intestate on 22 February 1927. By the well-known canons
of customary law, the land would become family property and would vest in the
head of the family for the beneficial enjoyment of the entire family. As
Odartey hailed from Ga Mashi, his family, for the purpose of inheritance, would
be members of the matrilineal family and his children qua children would be out
of reckoning for the purpose of inheritance but for the matter to be presently
mentioned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
Odartey’s death, his younger brother of the full blood suceeded him and stood
possessed of this land for and on behalf of the family. This brother was called
Kojo Golightly. On 9 May 1945, the said Kojo Golightly, in his capacity as head
of the family of his late brother Odartey, granted a lease of the land in
question to one C. A. Vanderpuye for the term of 99 years subject to the
conditions and stipulations in the lease (exhibit A). It was a building lease
and the evidence shows that the said lessee erected a building on the said land
in or about 1946. Kojo Golightly died on 31 October 1952. The said C. A.
Vanderpuye has also since died although there is no evidence as to the date of
his death. But it seems plain that not only was Kojo Golightly’s right to grant
this lease never disputed in his lifetime, but also the late C. A. Vanderpuye
was equally not disturbed in his enjoyment of the demised land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence establishes that the late Odartey contracted two successive marriages
under the Marriage Ordinance,1 and possibly a prior customary marriage although
the evidence of this is rather slight. At his death in 1927, Odartey was
survived by the widow of the later statutory marriage and by some of the
children of that marriage and the earlier two marriages. As I have said, the
natural children of Odartey would, as such, have no interest in his property
after his demise and, a fortiori, would have no locus standi to litigate about
these properties, but by virtue of the provisions of section 48 of the Marriage
Ordinance, these children would be entitled, in the events which have happened,
to two-thirds of his self-acquired real and personal properties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Ac</main>