SABBAH AND OTHERS vs. WORBI AND OTHERS [1966]DLHC1746

Date	1966-01-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1746

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1966]DLHC1746
																																						<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" >SABBAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>WORBI AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 87<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:
25 JANUARY
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">

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

S. A. X. TSEGAH 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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON–BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>When this
appeal finally came on for hearing Mr. Bossman for the respondents raised the
preliminary point that there is no appeal before the court on the part of the
third and fourth co-defendants because they have no appealable interest. The
case was between two opposing families. According to customary law the head of
the family is the proper person to sue and be sued on behalf of the family. And
where he does so, the interest represented by him is exhaustive, and any other
person who join the head of family can represent no other interest. If
therefore the case is decided against the family, the head of the family is the
proper person to appeal, and no other person can do so. He placed strong
reliance on the case of Medienhia v. Nyabi.1<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the head of family was admittedly E. T. Sabbah, the first defendant. The
third and fourth defendants applied during the trial before the local court to
be made co-defendants because they were interested in the land in dispute and
also on the further ground that their advice would be of help or assistance to
the first defendant. Nowhere is any indication of any special interest in the
land in dispute disclosed beyond the ordinary interest of members of the family
in family land. The local court however made an order for joining them as
co-defendants. Judgment was given against the defendants and the co-defendants
and the first defendant who is the head of family did not appeal. The third and
fourth defendants claim that being parties to the suit, they are entitled to appeal.
The right of appeal is statutory and is contained in section 126 of the Courts
Act, 1960.2 It provides:<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">“126. Any
party aggrieved by a decision of a Local Court on an issue relating to land or
an interest in land or a succession cause involving land may appeal to the High
Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
therefore essential to any appeal from a local court that it must be by a party
who is aggrieved by the decision, and the point that arises is whether a person
can be aggrieved by a decision in a case to which he should never have been a
party. In other words, whether where there is a head of family representing the
family in litigation, any other member of the family can be made a party to the
dispute in the same interest, and if not, whether such joinder, if wrongly made
can confer on such party a right of appeal. The test it seems to me is whether
the person appealing could in law be made a party to the suit: see Re Youngs;
Doggett v. Revett.3 In Kwan v. Nyieni.4 Ollennu J. (as he then was) summarised
the general rule of customary law thus5:<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) as a
general rule the head of a family, as representative of the family, is the
proper person to institute suits for the recovery of family land;<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) To
this general rule there are exceptions in certain special circumstances, such
as:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i) Where the family property is in
danger of being lost to the family, and it is shown that the head (either out
of personal interest, or otherwise) will not make a move to save or preserve
it; or <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii) Where, owing to a division in the
family, the head and some of the principal members will not take any step; or <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii) Where the head and the principal
members are deliberately disposing of the family property in their personal
interest, to the detriment of the family as a whole. In any such special
circumstances, the Court will entertain an action by any member of the family,
either upon proof that he has been authorised by other members of the family to
sue, or upon proof of necessity, provided that the Court is satisfied that the
action is instituted in order to preserve the famil</main>