SAAKA vs. DAHALI [1985]DLCA995

Date	1985-07-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA995

TAYLOR JSC

EDUSEI JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

MENSA-ESTI FOR THE APPELLANT

JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM BADOEHU) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA995
																																						<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">

SAAKA<o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 2 GLR 774<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
25 JULY 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">

MENSA-ESTI
FOR THE APPELLANT <o:p></o:p>

JAMES
AHENKORAH (WITH HIM BADOEHU) 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">

TAYLOR JSC, EDUSEI AND EDWARD WIREDU JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR JSC<o:p></o:p>We have
already allowed the appeal in this case, reversed the decision of the High
Court and given judgment in favour of the plaintiff - appellant but we reserved
our reasons for the said judgment. I now proceed to give the reasons why I
concurred in the decision to allow the appeal. A brief resume of the genealogy
of the litigants and the facts which have led to this dispute are very
necessary to an understanding of the judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff who is the appellant before us is the daughter of one Saaka Dagomba
who from the evidence must have died about 1948 or thereabout in Pong Tamale.
She is his only surviving child. The mother of the defendant, the respondent
herein, was one Nabia Dahali deceased, who was herself the daughter of a widow,
one Napari Yemo, who also died many years ago.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
which the plaintiff put up at the trial and which was accepted by the trial
court was that her father, the late Saaka Dagomba built a house No G30 at
Tamale during his lifetime and lived there until his brother Neindo who was a
chief in a village in Pong Tamale died, when on succeeding him as a chief he
moved from the said house to stay in Pong Tamale in the style of a chief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
moving to Pong Tamale the late Saaka Dagomba allowed his friend called Suguri
to live with him in the said house at Tamale. The plaintiff was born in the
house. When Suguri’s aunt, the said Napari Yemo, was bereaved by the loss of
her husband who was then chief of Karaga, Saaka Dagomba permitted her to live
in the house with her nephew Suguri. At that time a relative of Saaka Dagomba
called Mahama was also living in the house and on Saaka ascending the said
position of chief in the village in Pong Tamale, he left his house and the
documents on it, in the care of Mahama and Suguri. The documents from the
evidence would seem to be bills for water rates. When Saaka Dagomba went to his
inheritance at Pong Tamale his relative, the said Mahama, travelled away from
Tamale and later died.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
meantime while Saaka Dagomba was at Pong Tamale, Nabia Dahali whom the
defendant said was her mother came and lived in the house. She was as already
indicated the daughter of Napari Yemo and stayed in the house to look after her
old mother.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Suguri,
the friend of Saaka Dagomba, left the house for Duntsetana village to farm and
later he also died there. When he was leaving, however, he left the said
documents and the house with the apparent approval of Saaka Dagomba in the sole
care of Nabia Dahali. Whilst Nabia Dahali was thus living in the house one room
and a verandah collapsed and although Saaka Dagomba objected to her rebuilding
the collapsed structure she nonetheless rebuilt it at a cost of £75. Saaka
Dagomba was apparently not happy about that and he tendered the cost of £75 to
Nabia Dahali. She pleaded that accepting the money would mean that Saaka
Dagomba was evicting her from his house and she brought people to render
apology to Saaka Dagomba. Saaka Dagomba pointed out that he did not want
anybody to trouble his children and he introduced the plaintiff to Nabia Dahali
as his daughter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>