TOGBE MANKLALO DAGADU III & 19 OTHERS vs. AGBOTADUA ATAKLI & 2 ORS. [2005]DLCA6639

Date	2005-05-27
Suit No.	HI/27/05
Citation No.	[2005]DLCA6639

FARKYE JA [PRESIDING]

ASIAMA JA

KUSI APPIAH JA

YAO YEGBEY FOR RESPONDENTS

IGNATIUS DE PAUL FOR APPELLANTS.

[2005]DLCA6639
																																						<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" >TOGBE
MANKLALO DAGADU III &amp; 19 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGBOTADUA
ATAKLI &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">IGNATIUS DE PAUL FOR
APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

FARKYE JA [PRESIDING], ASIAMA JA, KUSI
APPIAH JA.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>FARKYE,
JA <o:p></o:p>This
judgment is in respect of an Interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the
High Court Ho, dated 14th April 2003. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are that the Plaintiffs/Respondents on 11th December, 2001
issued a writ of summons against the Defendants/Appellants claiming:— <o:p></o:p>(1)
Declaration that by the proper and true construction of the two Powers of
Attorney dated 18/9/70 and 14/7/88 respectively, the attorneys thereof have no
title, right or authority to alienate title of any Fievie tribal land by sale,
lease, gift, mortgage or otherwise. <o:p></o:p>(2)
Declaration that the purported sale, lease or alienation of any Fievie tribal
land by the defendants herein under the said Powers of Attorney was Ultra Vires
the powers granted them and is therefore null and void and of no effect. <o:p></o:p>(3)
An order for accounts to be rendered by the defendants. <o:p></o:p>(4)
An order revoking the Powers of Attorney dated 18/9/70 and 14/7/80[s]
respectively. <o:p></o:p>(5)
General Damages. <o:p></o:p>In
this judgment the Plaintiffs/Respondents are referred to as the Respondents and
the Defendants/Appellants are also referred to as the Appellants. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondents claimed to be suing as heads of families and principal members of
the Fievie clan who had given power of attorney to the Appellants. That those
people are only to litigate in the name of Fievie Tribal area. They are not to
alienate land without consent and authority of the donors of the powers of
attorney. If the donees alienate land without the consent of the donors the
alienation should be null and void. <o:p></o:p>After
pleadings had closed there was the very important point touching on the two
powers of attorney granted to the donees some of whom are the Appellants. The
Appellants trace their source of authority to these two Powers of Attorney. <o:p></o:p>Paragraph
40 of the Respondents' Statement of Claim showed that Ziatus Sagada one of the
four attorneys has since died leaving three of the donees aline. The Appellants
grounded their preliminary point of the law on the fact that with the death of
one of the donees, the power of attorney also elapsed or died and the three
donees of the power of attorney cannot be called to account on the dead power
of attorney. <o:p></o:p>According
to the law a joint agency is terminated by the death of any one of the joint
agents. Therefore in the instant case with the death of Ziatus Sagada in
February 1993 the two powers of attorney granted on 18/9/70 and 14/7/80
respectively became extinct. <o:p></o:p>However,
the 3rd relief of the Respondents is an order of accounts for the Appellants to
render to the Respondents all moneys collected by the Defendants/Appellants. In
this regard the Appellants will have to account to the Respondents from 1970 up
to 1993 when Ziatus Sagada died and the two powers became extinct. <o:p></o:p>Going
through the summons for direction filed on 10/10/02 parag</main>