FULANI AND ANOTHER vs. ISSAH [1979]DLHC1061

Date	1979-06-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1061

ANSAH-TWUM J.

MISS FRANCES MERCER FOR JAMES MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANTS - APPELLANTS.

DR. TACKIE - OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1061
																																						<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" >FULANI AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ISSAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 319<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:
1 JUNE 1979<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">

MISS FRANCES MERCER FOR JAMES MERCER FOR THE
DEFENDANTS - APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. TACKIE - OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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 1.0pt 0in">

ANSAH-TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANSAH TWUM J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the decision of the District Magistrate Court Grade I,
Tarkwa, dated 1 November 1978. The only original ground of appeal filed was the
usual omnibus ground: “(1) The Judgment is against the weight of the evidence.”
The following additional grounds of appeal were, however, filed on 14 February
1979:<o:p></o:p>“(2) The
trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff-respondent’s suit. <o:p></o:p>(3) The
plaintiff-respondent failed completely to establish a cause of action against
the defendants-appellants. <o:p></o:p>(4) The
learned trial magistrate erred in law in not applying the rules of customary
law applicable in the case before him.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(5) The learned trial magistrate erred in law
in applying the wrong principle of law in granting custody of the child to the
plaintiff-respondent. <o:p></o:p>(6) The
learned trial magistrate’s decision is contrary to public policy and cannot be
supported.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The claim
before the district court against the appellants was for:<o:p></o:p>“(1)
Possession of the plaintiff’s son born on 17 January 1978. (2) ¢200 damages for
unlawful detention of the plaintiff’s said child.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) denied
liability and the second defendant filed the following counterclaim against the
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff):<o:p></o:p>“(a) An
order of the court prohibiting the plaintiff from carrying on further
concubinage with the second defendant’s wife, Fati. (b) ¢700 damages for
seduction of the second defendant’s wife made up of<o:p></o:p>(i)
Special damages of ¢300 being transport expenses incurred whilst looking for my
wife who some time left the marital home without my knowledge. <o:p></o:p>(ii) ¢400
being general damages.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s case before the trial court, inter alia, was that he met the woman
Fati, some time in 1977 at Atieku market and proposed marriage to her because
Fati claimed that she had been divorced by her husband. Fati apparently
consented to the marriage proposal and later went and stayed with the plaintiff
at Atieku for four days. Fati was at the time staying with her parents at
Subri. Fati’s mother looking for Fati, traced her to the plaintiff and having
taken Fati away reported the plaintiff to the Atieku police</main>