ALLOTEY AND OTHERS vs. UARCOO [1980]DLCA1554

Date	1980-01-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1554

ANIN J.S.C.

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON J.A.

TSATSU TSIKATA (WITH HIM MISS APALOO) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

A. Q. A. ARCHEAMPONG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLCA1554
																																						<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" >ALLOTEY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>UARCOO<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 208<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:
22
JANUARY 1981<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">

TSATSU TSIKATA (WITH HIM MISS APALOO) FOR THE
APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

A. Q. A. ARCHEAMPONG 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">

ANIN J.S.C., EDUSEI AND MENSA BOISON
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Anin
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 16 December 1980, we allowed
this appeal and reserved our reasons. We proceed to give them now.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the
death of Dr. C. E. Reindorf on 11 April 1968, the Onamrokor Adain family of
Gbese, Accra, has been embroiled in protracted internecine litigation
concerning his successor as head of family. The first suit entitled B. A.
Quarcoo v. Manye Adorkor Allotey and Messrs. C.F.C. ended in a judgment
incorporating an amicable settlement promoted by the La Mantse and Mr. Justice
Nii Amaa Ollennu and filed in the court below on 23 December 1974. Under the
terms of settlement, the plaintiff and the first defendant who incidentally
fill the same roles in the present suit, were appointed joint family heads and
it was also agreed that accredited representatives of the six constituent
branches of the family should constitute elders and councillors to assist the
joint heads in their administration of the family and its properties. The six
elders who were selected by their respective branches of the family are the
second plaintiff-non-respondent (now deceased) and the second, third, fourth,
fifth and sixth defendants-appellants in the present action—the second in the
series, commenced by a writ of summons filed on 3 June 1976. The reliefs
claimed therein were: (a) a declaration that the first plaintiff is still the
joint head of the Onamrokor Adain family and that he has not been
constitutionally and customarily deposed, and (b) an injunction restraining the
defendants from dealing with the family lands until the determination of the
suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs first referred to the earlier suit
and settlement reached and the formation of the council of elders as briefly recounted
above. It was next stated that the defendants herein invited the first
plaintiff to a family meeting to answer five specified charges preferred
against him, i.e. mismanagement of family property; failure to account for
family moneys collected by him; unauthorised sale of family lands; refusal to
co-operate with family council; and lack of respect and consideration for the
other joint head, Manye Adorkor Allotey, as well as the elders of the family
constituting the family council. These charges were allegedly answered by the
first plaintiff in a letter dated 20 February 1976. It was further stated in
paragraph 10 of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs attended the
proposed family meeting on 21 February 1976 and that “the first plaintiff answered
all the specific charges and therefore the meeting came to an end.” (The
emphasis is mine.) However, by a poster dated 23 February 1976 he is alleged to
have been deposed as joint head of family. Finally, the statement of claim made
counter allegations of improper sale and irregular conveyances of family lands
against the defendants during the pendency of the first suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
amended defence, it was the first averred that at the family meeting held on 21
February 1976, the plaintiff “was lawfully, constitutionally and in full
accordance with the relevant customary law and practice deposed as a joint head
of the family,” whereby he lost his place on the family council and the first
defendant was left as the sole head of family. Next, objection was taken to the
plaintiffs’ attempt to invest the court with jurisdiction—which it
lacked—either to hear charges preferred for the deposition of a family head or
to pronounce on the merits of such charges or to evaluate any evidence adduced
for the purpose. In short, it was contended, the court has no jurisdiction,
whether original or appellate, to inquire into the merits of the matters raised
in the amended statement of claim which touched on the substantive merits of
the deposition charges duly brought against the first plaintiff before the only
competent body, i.e. the Onamrokor Adain family. In paragraph 10 of the amended
defence it was averred 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
plaintiff contemptuously withdraw from and walked out of, the said meeting
before its conclusion and that after the plaintiff’s said withdrawal, the
meeting, which was a full assembly of the family, unanimously decided and
resolved that the first plaintiff be deposed from the position of joint head of
the family with immediate effect, whereafter the meeting came to an end.”<o:p></o:p>In a
subsequ</main>