COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE vs. NARTEY AND OTHERS [1971]DLHC2100

Date	1971-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2100

ABBAN J.

T. AHLIJA STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

R. P. SWANIKER (BADDOO WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLHC2100
																																						<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" >COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NARTEY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<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]&nbsp; GLR 353<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:
26 MARCH 1971.<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">

T. AHLIJA,
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. P.
SWANIKER (BADDOO WITH HIM) 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant endorsed on the writ of
summons is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(a) An
order of the court upon the defendant to subsist and maintain and educate the
second and third plaintiffs until they attain the age of manhood. <o:p></o:p>(b) An
order of the court upon the defendant to pay to the first plaintiff the sum of
N¢576 or £G288 representing expenses incurred by her in respect of second and third
plaintiffs towards their living, maintenance and subsistence from the date of
death of their father until the date of the action reckoned at N¢0.80 or 8s.
per day (i.e. from 4 February 1966 to 28 February 1968). (c) Mesne profit. (d)
An order of the court upon the defendant to maintain the first plaintiff as
from the date of her husband’s death until she may get married or in the
alternative until her death.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant is admittedly the customary successor of one J. E. Appiadu (deceased)
the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second and third
plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs is substantially a claim to be
maintained by the defendant from the date of the death of the said Appiadu in
the case of the first plaintiff for life or until she marries and in the case
of the second and third plaintiffs until they are of age. It is not necessary
to go into the pleadings at all. One of the issues formulated in the statement
of defence and filed by the defendant at the summons for direction and on the
basis of which inter alia the action was to proceed to trial is: “Whether or
not the plaintiffs’ action is in law premature or misconceived.”<o:p></o:p>Proceeding
apparently under Order 25, r. 3 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules 1954 (L.N. 140A), counsel for the defendant has moved this court to set
down this issue for hearing on the ground that it will substantially dispose of
the matter. Of course in the affidavit in support of the motion it&nbsp; was conceded that the claim of the first
plaintiff for maintenance in her own right as the wife of the deceased J. E.
Appiadu is outside the scope of the motion. Accordingly claim (d) of the writ
of summons was excluded from the present application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
mainstay of the argument of counsel for the defendant is the Maintenance of
Children Act, 1965 (Act 297). Under section 1 of that Act it is provided as
follows: [His lordship here read the provisions of the section as set out in
the headnote and continued:] The minister is enjoined if he considers it
necessary to appoint a committee consisting of fit and proper persons to
enquire into any application and make recommendation to him. Thereupon the
minister, with the welfare of the child as his first and paramount concern can
make his ruling on the application in accordance with the yardstick provided in
section 4 of the Act. Under section 6 of the Act, it is provided that
proceedings should not be instituted in court under the Act until the minister
has had an opportunity of considering and ruling on the application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Citing
these provisions counsel referred to the case of Osei Yaw v. Akua Nsiah, High
Court, Kumasi, 23 October 1968, unreported; digested in (1969) C.C. 78, decided
by Annan J. In that case which was an appeal from a district court, the
plaintiff-respondent had claimed at the district court arrears of maintenance
and an order for future maintenance in respect o</main>