ASARE vs. DZENY [1976]DLCA359

Date	1976-03-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA359

AZU CRABBE C.J.

ARCHER J.A

ANIN J.A

ANNAN J.A.

ABBAN J.

AYISI FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.

E. D. KOM FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA359
																																						<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" >ASARE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DZENY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 473<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:
9 MARCH 1976.<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">

AYISI FOR THE SECOND APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E. D. KOM 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">

AZU CRABBE C.J., ARCHER, ANIN AND ANNAN
JJ.A. AND ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal came before us by virtue of section 3 sub-section (2) (d) of the Courts
(Amendment) Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 101).<o:p></o:p>The
circumstances giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated. On 24 November
1960, a writ of summons filed in the High Court, Ho, was entitled:<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">&nbsp;“1. KWAME GOMADO—Head of family of late)<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">Clemence Kwadjo Ntibiri, Kpandu
Main Road,) <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">Zongo—at Adame Anfoega )
PLAINTIFFS <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. SYLVESTER KWASI NTIBIRI also
of Aveme,) <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">successor to Clemence Kwadjo Ntibiri)
<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">versus <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. JONATHAN KLU of Ve Deme near Golokwati)
<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. HONOURABLE F. Y. ASARE, Regional)
DEFENDANTS.”<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">Commissioner, Regional Office, Ho.)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants was for (a) a declaration that the
sale of the plaintiffs’ family land under a writ of fi. fa. on 15 August 1959,
was “unlawful, null and void”; (b) revocation of the certificate of purchase
issued to the second defendant; (c) declaration of title and recovery of
possession of the land sold; (d) damages; and (e) accounts.<o:p></o:p>The
pleadings in the case were not incorporated in the record of proceedings for
this court to know the precise averments that were made by the parties, but in
two passages from the judgment of the trial judge (Prempeh J.) it is clear that
two fundamental issues were raised in the pleadings of the defendants. The
learned trial judge said:<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">“In
paragraph (2) of both statements of defence filed on behalf of the first and
second defendants, the point was taken that the first plaintiff was not the
head of family of the late Clemence Kwadjo Ntibiri, and that he was incompetent
to bring this action against the defendants. Further in paragraph (3) of both
statements of defence it was denied that the second plaintiff was the customary
successor of the late Clemence Kwadjo Ntibiri and the point was also taken that
he was incompetent to bring the action against the defendants.”<o:p></o:p>