ESSIEN ALIAS BAIDU vs. ANGU II AND ANOTHER [1983]DLHC2123

Date	1983-03-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2123

TWUMASI J.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

WILLIAM HAMMOND AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1983]DLHC2123
																																						<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" >ESSIEN ALIAS BAIDU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANGU II AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 60<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:
23 MARCH 1983<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">

JAMES MERCER FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

WILLIAM HAMMOND AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
capacity in which the plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant
was the ebusuapanyin of the Kukordo Ebiradze stool family of Fijai. The writ
was filed on 4 December 1980. It is crystal clear from the pleadings filed by
the defendant and co-defendant that they both by necessary implication admit
that at the time the plaintiff filed his writ of summons he occupied the
exalted and most revered position of ebusuapanyin of the Kukordo Ebiradze stool
family to which all the parties belong. But both the defendant and the
co-defendant, the latter being more vocal, aver in their pleadings that the
plaintiff was removed from his office as head of the stool family at a meeting
of the principal members of the stool family held sometime in February 1981.
Most prominent among the averments in the co-defendant’s amended statement of
defence and counterclaim are paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 couched in the following
terms: <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) The
co-defendant says that some time in February 1981, the members of the family
served the plaintiff with notice to attend a family meeting to be held on or
about 8 February 1981 to answer various charges failing which the family would
proceed against him. <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">(3) The
co-defendant says that the plaintiff refused to attend the said meeting. <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">(4) The
co-defendant further says that in the absence of any explanation by the
plaintiff, the family removed him as such head and notified him accordingly.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mercer
for the plaintiff in an application to this court, prays for an order that the
co-defendant does, within fourteen days, serve on the plaintiff the following
particulars:<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">“(a) The
precise date of the alleged service of notice (there being only seven days
between 1 and 8 February 1981) <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">(b) The
manner of the alleged service of notice. <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">(c) By
whom the alleged notice was served. <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">(d) The
date and manner of the alleged notification referred to in paragraph 4 of the
amended statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>The issue
that crops up at this stage of the pleadings relates to family meetings under
customary law. Our law insists that whenever it becomes necessary for a family
meeting to be held for the purpose of appointing or removing a head of family,
prior notice of such meeting should be given to all members of the family
entitled by custom to participate in the appointment or removal, as the case
may be, of a head of family: see Lartey v. Mensah and Dedei (1958) 3 W.A.L.R.
410 and Welbeck v. M. Captan and Hammond (1956) 2 W.A.L.R. 47. The word
“notice” in this context means no more than an invitation to attend a family
meeting. It is important in all cases to determine the context in which the
word “notice” or “notify” is used. In the instant case, the co-defendant has
pleaded that the plaintiff was served with certain notices to attend a family
meeting, but he refused to attend and further that he was notified of the
proceedings of the meeting. The form and precise terms of these notices have
been exhibited and the allegation is that these notices were served on the
plaintiff. So the plaintiff comes to the trial court with knowledge that the
co-defendant is going to prove service of written notices of a family meeting
held on 8 February 1981. I do not see how evidence of the service of such
notice should spring a surprise on the plaintiff so that he can say that he is
coming to court without knowing what his opponent is going to prove against
him. In the English case of Re Dependable Upholstery Ltd. [1936] 3 All E.R.
741, Crossman J. held, and right</main>