BARNES AND OTHERS vs. WIRESI XIV [1970]DLSC2092

Date	1970-12-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLSC2092

APALOO JA

SOWAH JA

ARCHER J.A.

E. N. MOORE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

E. G. TANOH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLSC2092
																																						<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" >BARNES AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>WIRESI XIV <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 98<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:
7 DECEMBER 1970.<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">

E. N.
MOORE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

APALOO, SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Sowah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. After hearing arguments of counsel,
we dismissed the appeal and reserved our reasons; we now proceed to give those
reasons.<o:p></o:p>Though
the events leading to the attachment proceedings being pursued against the
respondent had been set down with sufficient clarity in the ruling appealed
from, it is necessary to state some short facts for the proper appreciation of
our reasons. On 24 November 1969, the chief bailiff of the Cape Coast High
Court, in the company of policemen and a messenger of the court, endeavoured to
execute an order of injunction decreed by the Ajumako Traditional Council upon
the respondent at his residence at Odoben. The said order is short and may with
profit, be reproduced in extenso, it 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">“ORDER OF
THE COUNCIL Upon the motion and affidavit filed by the plaintiffs seeking for
an order of injunction to be placed on Odoben Agona Royal Family stool property
now in possession of the defendant in the suit herein, the Ajumako Traditional
Council granted the injunction to be placed on the said royal stool properties.
The council further ordered that an inventory of the stool properties attached
to the stool of Odoben should be taken and handed over to Kwesie Baidoo the son
of late Kwesie Andam, deceased of Odoben to keep them. The secretary, Nana
Kweku Mensah, Nana Ofosu Boafo and Nana Adow II, Odikro of Owani together with
chief-linguist, Nana Kobina Ninsin to go to Odoben on Thursday to take the
inventory. Assistant Superintendent of Police, Saltpond would be contacted for
his assistance in dispatching this order of the council. <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">(Sgd.)
Nana Kwamina Hammah Ababio President Ajumako Traditional Council.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent alleged that the order was read over to him but when he asked for a
copy, the chief bailiff declined, saying that there was no copy available for
service upon him. Thereupon he refused to hand over to the bailiff the Odoben
Agona royal family stool properties in his possession. His other reasons for
refusal were, firstly, that he had lodged an interlocutory appeal against the
order to the Central Region House of Chiefs, the appellate court, in that
traditional area, and the appellate court had instructed the Ajumako
Traditional Council to suspend its order and refrain from carrying it out;
secondly, the order read over to him differed in a material particular from the
oral order made in council; thirdly, the persons named in the order who were to
take inventory of the stool property were not present with the chief bailiff
and the policemen and neither was the person to take over after the inventory.
His refusal thus sparked off these proceedings in the Cape Coast High Court
where the trial was on affidavits.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned High Court judge, after hearing argument of counsel in support of the
affidavit, held that the lodgment of an appeal against the order operated as a
stay of execution of the order of the Ajumako Traditional Council; further,
that the respondent had shown reasonable grounds for non-compliance with the
said order. The learned judge observed that the chief bailiff was not a person
named in the order and in attempting to take inventory of the stool property,
he acted ultra vires. It also afforded the respondent sufficient cause for
declining to comply with the order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>