PANYIN AND OTHERS vs. YAW [1983]DLHC2167

Date	1983-03-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2167

TWUMASI J.

DR. E. N. TACKIE-OTOO FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DAVID YAW BOATENG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLHC2167
																																						<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" >PANYIN AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>YAW <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1118<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:
16 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">

DR. E. N. TACKIE-OTOO FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

DAVID YAW BOATENG 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the District Court Grade II, Axim. An action was
instituted against the appellants herein by the respondent. For the purpose of
this appeal, I would refer to the respondent as the plaintiff and the
appellants as the defendants. The evidence adduced at the trial showed that the
plaintiff and the defendants were members of the same family who traced their
immediate ancestry to a woman called Amoo Yaaba who begat Amose Tanueh and J.
E. Cudjoe. Assisted by her two children, Amoo Yaaba and a sister of hers by
name Kwabla-ba jointly put up house No. 115, Lower Axim. Amoo Yaaba, Kwabla-ba
and J. E. Cudjoe had all died at the time this action was instituted leaving
Amose Tanueh as the only survivor among those who put up the house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
law clearly states, where two or more members of a family acquire property by
their joint efforts the property assumes the character of family property: see
Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws, p. 57. The plaintiff and the defendants are
junior members of the Amoo Yaaba family, Amose Tanueh, head of the family had a
room in the family house. Some time before the writ was issued, the third
defendant without the knowledge of Amose Tanueh, forcibly broke into the
latter’s room and took possession of it by fixing a new lock and key, and gave
the room to his mother, the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
remaining rooms are all occupied by the third defendant and his brothers and
sisters to the exclusion of the head of family and other members of the family.
The head of the family, Amose Tanueh, not being pleased with the state of
affairs appointed the plaintiff to institute an action to eject the third
defendant and those members of the family who had taken possession of the house
to the exclusion of all other members. The trial magistrate, in giving judgment
against the defendants stated:<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">“As
members of the family they are entitled to a share from the one-third for the
family and not the whole. In this instance the defendants have deprived any
other member of the family including Amose Tanueh, the only living co-owner
from entering the house. It is my considered view that Amose Tanueh has the
power to eject the defendants and I enter judgment for the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
decision has been attacked by counsel for the defendants as having been based
upon wrong principles of law. Counsel submitted that members of a family cannot
be ejected from a family house under any circumstances. Counsel for the
plaintiff apparently conceded the point made by his learned friend but argued
that the trial magistrate’s judgment could be varied by this court by making an
order that at least one room should be given to the head of family, preferably
the one of which he was wrongfully dispossessed. He based his appeal upon
equity and fair-play. He severely condemned the conduct of the third defendant
and submitted that it was unfair for the defendants to take exclusive
possession of the family house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
appeal raises the question of whether a member of a family can be ejected from
a family house and if so under what circumstances. Sarbah in his Fanti
Customary Laws describes the head of family as “Penin” while Danquah calls him
“Abusuapanyin” or “patriarch” in his Akan Laws and Customs. Both share a common
view that the head of family is the chief administrator and ruler of the affairs
of the family and his position commands respect and obedience from members of
the family. He is endowed by customary law with powers necessary for the
efficient administration of the family. Sarbah says at pages 37-38 of his book:<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
members of the family are bound to obey the lawful commands of the penin; he
arranges the rooms in the family residence to be allotted to each, and what
portions of the family lands each is to cultivate or possess. Rooms and lands
so allotted continue in the possession of such pers</main>