NUAMAH vs. FRIMPONG [1973]DLHC2332

Date	1973-04-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2332

KORANTENG -ADDOW J.

P.K. OWUSU-SEKYERE FOR THE APPELLANT.

W.K. ACKUN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2332
																																						<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" >NUAMAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>FRIMPONG <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 37<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
11 APRIL 1973.<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">

P.K. OWUSU-SEKYERE FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

W.K. ACKUN 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">

KORANTENG -ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff sued the defendants herein for failing to make good expenses he
incurred on their behalf when at their request he engaged a lawyer to defend a
relation of theirs who was involved in a criminal case. Since they failed to
pay the expenses he brought an action against them claiming ¢200.00 damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He
succeeded in that action and was adjudged to recover that amount from the
defendants. As the defendants did not satisfy that judgment debt he sued out a
fieri facias to sell the property involved herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
property, a dwelling-house, was attached the claimant interpleaded. And this
appeal arose out of the suit. The claimant claimed the property to be his own.
He said that he built it and allowed the fourth defendant, a relation of his
who is an invalid, to occupy it during her infirmity. The trial magistrate
would seem to have accepted the evidence adduced by the claimant about the
status of the property but held that the fourth defendant then had a life
interest in the property which could be sold in satisfaction of the judgment
debt. He therefore ordered that the fourth defendant should be ejected and the
premises let for the purpose of defraying the debt.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
coming to his conclusion the trial magistrate referred to a passage from Odgers
on Pleading and Practice (18th ed.). p. 375 which says that:<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
sheriff can sell under a fi. fa. a lease or term of years belonging to the
debtor, and execute an assignment of it under his seal of office to the
purchaser. But he cannot sell an estate in fee, or for life, or an equitable
interest such as an equity of redemption, or things which . . . would pass on
death to the heir, and not to the executor, of the owner,”<o:p></o:p>and would
seem to have drawn his inspiration from it. The conclusion he came to from that
premise would seem to me, however, to be a non sequitur. For as observed from
the passage, a life interest was not saleable under execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But that
is not the main point in this matter. The primary question which to my mind had
to be resolved by the trial magistrate was whether or not a life interest in
the sense contemplated by the passage quoted from Odgers is an African
concept-a concept known to the customary law. I personally do not think it is.
A life interest within the contemplation of the passage is a recognized concept
of English law. It is one of the three legal estates of English land law.<o:p></o:p>The law
is now firmly settled that in their dealings between or among themselves it
must be presumed that the natives of this country intended that the customary
law shall apply unless the contrary intention appears. And this is more true
when the subject-matter is land or an interest in land. This principle was once
embodied and spelled out in section 87(1) of the now repealed Courts Ordinance,
Cap. 4 (1951 Rev), of this country. Therein it was stated that in all suits
between Africans or persons of Africa descent on one hand and persons not</main>