QUAGRAINE vs. EDU [1966]DLHC1743

Date	1966-05-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1743

ARCHER J.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1966]DLHC1743
																																						<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" >QUAGRAINE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>EDU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 406<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:
31 MAY 1966.<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff as the customary successor of the late James Brodie Apprey, claims
from the defendant £G500 damages for trespass committed by the defendant who
posted notices on seven houses forming part of the property the plaintiff
succeeded to on Apprey’s death. The form of notice attached to the writ of summons
reads:<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
public are hereby informed that as from the date hereof no payment of rents in
respect of the estates of James Brodie Apprey and Joseph Edward Biney,
deceased, may be made to Mr. Kobina Abaka Quagraine, his agents or servants.
The said Kobina Abaka Quagraine has been removed as successor to late James
Brodie Apprey, Cape Coast, and whoever overlooks this notice [warning] does so
at his or her own risks. Ebusua Panyin Kow Edu, Head of Deshina Family of
Anyanmaim, for himself and on behalf of all families. Dated 17th August, 1964.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff also claims a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his
agents or servants or both from having anything whatsoever to do with the lands
with the houses thereon described in the writ. The facts of the case are
straightforward. One Joseph Edward Biney, a wealthy man on his death appointed
one James Brodie Apprey his sole heir and administrator. Accordingly, on a true
construction of the will in exhibit C, Apprey became the beneficial devisee of
certain real properties in addition to other properties bequeathed to him by
Biney. Apprey therefore enjoyed these properties absolutely in his own right.
Apprey, however, died intestate and in accordance with Fante customary law, the
estate of Apprey became family property. It is not in dispute that the present
plaintiff was appointed customary successor to Apprey and he has, since the
death of Apprey, been controlling these properties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
November 1964, the defendant claiming to be the head of the Deshina family of
Anyanmaim posted notices warning the entire world against paying any rents to
the plaintiff in respect of the properties left by Apprey on the ground that
the plaintiff had been removed as customary successor to Apprey. The plaintiff
maintains that he is still the customary successor and has not been removed by
his head of family and denies further that he comes from Anyanmaim. In his
evidence, the plaintiff stated that after the death of his senior and uterine
brother, Apprey, on 17 November 1951 and after the funeral rites in January
1952, his mother conferred with the head of family, one Kwesi Wiah, and
appointed him successor to his brother Apprey and thereupon he became the head
of his brother’s immediate family of the Deshina family of Gura-Anamoa,
Saltpond and Anomabo. The mother of the plaintiff was one Aba Tomo who had five
sons all of whom, including James Brodie Apprey, are dead except the plaintiff
and his other brother Kofi Tawiah also known as King Brodie Quarshie. The
plaintiff rightly maintains that according to Fante customary law, the
immediate family of James Brodie Apprey are his mother, his brothers and
sisters, if any. Moreover the head of his wider family is now Kobina Dodu who
is the head of the Gura-Anamoa, Saltpond and Anomabo Deshina family. According
to the plaintiff, the defendant is not a member of his immediate family and
does not come from the Gura-Anamoa, Saltpond, and Anomabo Deshina family but
the defendant comes from Anyanmaim and he does not share any funeral debts with
the plaintiff‘s immediate or wider family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
also heard the evidence of Kobina Dodu, whom the plaintiff claims to be the
head of his wider family. Kobina Dodu was emphatic that he had never seen the
defendant at their family and funeral meetings and that he did not know him.
Next, the Omanhene of Anomabo also confirmed that to his knowledge, the
plaintiff comes from the Deshina family of Anomabo and GuraAnamoa. But the most
interesting and fascinating piece of evidence which the court heard was that of
James Brodie King Quarshie also known as Kofi Tawiah. This witness, a brother
of the plaintiff and a son of Aba Tomo, admitted in cross-examination that he
was once Omanhene of Anyanmaim under the stool name of Nana Ampadu Kwame II. He
agreed that his mother Aba Tomo was queenmother of Anyanmaim during his reign.
This witness said his family came from the Deshina family of Anomabo and that
the head of his family was Kobina Dodu. Furthermore, he knew the defendant at
Anyanmaim but he was not the head of his family. I shall quote now extensively
from this witnesses’s evidence in cross-examination. This is what he said:<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">