AKOTO II AND OTHERS vs. KAVEGE AND OTHERS [1985]DLCA830

Date	1985-04-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA830

FRANCOIS JSC

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN JA

B J DA ROCHA (WITH HIM DJIKUNU) FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

E D KOM (WITH HIM BADOHU) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.

[1985]DLCA830
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AKOTO II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 365<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
25 APRIL 1985<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

B J DA ROCHA (WITH HIM DJIKUNU) FOR THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

E D KOM (WITH HIM BADOHU) FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.<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">

FRANCOIS JSC, MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT FRANCOIS JSC.<o:p></o:p>The
contest between the parties is over a tract of land described by the plaintiffs
as stretching:<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">“from
where Kenemutu stream enters into River Dain and thence eastward to the point
where the Dibale stream meets River Dain and then northwards to Kegu and known
as Kadubatukator and Dadadukatu lands.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Each
party seeks a declaration of his title. It must be observed that the
plaintiffs’ description of the area in dispute does not show a completely
enclosed parcel of land but rather sets out a demarcating line with the River
Dain, as the dividing physical feature. I shall return to this aspect of the
plaint later in this judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The suit
was instituted by 151 named plaintiffs, and though the writ was not couched as
a representative action, the first two paragraphs of the statement of claim
assert its representative character. Those paragraphs were expressed as
follows:<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) The
first plaintiff is the Mankrado of Akpafu-Adorkor and sues for himself and on
behalf of 150 others whose names appear on the list hereto attached. (2) That
the plaintiffs are all subjects of the Akpafu-Adorkor stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
the view of the trial judge that the suit was instituted by the first
plaintiff, Adu Kavege, in a “representative capacity and as the leader of
subjects who together claimed with him.” But in the same breath, the learned
judge acknowledged “that each individual owns his land in the area.” Indeed the
principal spokesman for the plaintiffs, the eighth plaintiff, testified
categorically as follows: “In my area, there is no stool land. The land is
ancestral and belongs only to the head of family, as trustee for members of the
family.” The eighth plaintiff asserted later in his evidence that “the land which
the plaintiffs are claiming is not a stool property but property belonging to
individuals. 60 families have interest in this property in dispute.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
clear then that the plaintiffs are committed to representation by family heads
and not stool holders. The assertion of the eighth plaintiff is diametrically
opposed to the pleas in the statement of claim reproduced above and the judge’s
conclusion on the representative capacity of the first plaintiff must
consequently be held with respect to be erroneous. Since 60 families apparently
own the land, their family heads should have initiated action for the family
members. Yet not a single head of family entered the fray. The ambivalence
shrouding the status of the plaintiffs and their capacity to sue, has led to a
challenge by the defendant on the propriety of the form of action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Representative
actions are not unknown in this cou</main>