ANKRAH vs. ANKRAH [1966]DLSC1651

Date	1966-01-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1651

OLLENNU JSC

APALOO JSC

LASSEY J.S.C.

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1651
																																						<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" >ANKRAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANKRAH <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 60<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:
24 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">

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K. OHENE-AMPOFO 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">

OLLENNU, APALOO AND LASSEY, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-appellant herein, and the defendant-respondent herein, are sister and
brother of the whole blood. The suit commenced with a writ of summons issued
out in the Local Court B of Nsaba on 16 March 1960; judgment was given by that
court in favour of the plaintiff on 11 November 1960, but the same was set
aside by the High Court, Cape Coast, on 17 November 1961, on the ground of
irregularity, and a new trial was ordered. It was eventually tried by the
Nyakrom-Nkum Local Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The writ
of summons is in the nature of pleadings and it is 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">“The
plaintiff was in 1957, declared the customary successor to the late Kofi
Eburahin by the head and principal members of her family. Plaintiff then being
a native doctor living at Mankesim, could not manage the affairs reposed on her
and therefore appointed the defendant to act for her. Plaintiff has now come
home and is asking for her right but the defendant has flatly refused to
recognise her as such. Plaintiff therefore sues the defendant to show cause why
he should not relinquish the acting appointment and offer the plaintiff the
full right to enjoy her succession.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant pleaded not liable, and contended that he is successor in his own
right, and that he is not acting for and on behalf of his sister, the
plaintiff. He thus traversed the material averments made by the plaintiff,
namely, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
that she is the duly appointed successor to late Kofi
Eburahin, and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the defendant is in charge of the estate as acting
successor and agent of the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>Two
issues were therefore joined for determination, namely,<o:p></o:p>(i) Whether
the plaintiff is the duly appointed successor to Kofi Eburahin, and if she is;<o:p></o:p>(ii) Whether
the defendant’s management of the estate is as an acting successor appointed by
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Under
customary law a successor may appoint another member of the family to exercise
the office for him, but such appointment must be with the approval of the
family since the estate is vested in the family, and the family must be
satisfied as to the suitability of the person who would take charge of and
administer it in the absence of the successor. Since the plaintiff admits by
her pleadings that the defendant was administering the estate at th</main>