AFUA SARPONG,J.A. ODURO AND THOMAS K. ASAMOAH vs. OPANIN FRIMPONG AND OPANIN ADUSA [2008]DLCA6221

AFUA SARPONG,J.A. ODURO AND THOMAS K. ASAMOAH vs. OPANIN FRIMPONG AND OPANIN A... [2008]DLCA6221

Date	2008-03-13
Suit No.	H1/62/2007
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA6221

PIESARE J.A. [PRESIDING]

MARFUL-SAU J.A

MARIAMA OWUSU [MS.] J.A.

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MARIAMA AGYEMANG GYASI FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENT

[2008]DLCA6221
																																						<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" >AFUA
SARPONG,J.A. ODURO AND THOMAS K. ASAMOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OPANIN
FRIMPONG AND OPANIN ADUSA <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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">H1/62/2007&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH
MARCH, 2008.<o:p></o:p>

<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">MARIAMA AGYEMANG GYASI FOR
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">PIESARE J.A. [PRESIDING], MARFUL-SAU
J.A, MARIAMA OWUSU [MS.] J.A.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA
OWUSU [MS.], J.A. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Kumasi dated the 22nd day
of November, 2005. The Plaintiffs/Respondents in their Writ of Summons claim as
principal members of their family <o:p></o:p>1.
A declaration that Plot No. 16 Block 8A Dadiesoaba, Kumasi is a family
property. <o:p></o:p>2.
The 1st Defendant cannot enter into any agreement concerning the said property
with the 2nd Defendant without the knowledge and consent of the family.
Therefore any purported agreement on the said property between the Defendants
should be declared null and void. <o:p></o:p>3.
Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants their agents and assigns from
demolishing and interfering with the said property. <o:p></o:p>In
their 7 paragraph statement of claim, the Plaintiffs aver amongst other things
that they are principal members of their family. That they and 1st Defendant
are from the same family and 1st Defendant is the Head of family. Plaintiffs
continue that house No. 16, Block 8A, Dadiesoaba, Kumasi is the family property
of Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant. That it came to their notice that 2nd
Defendant was demolishing the said property to put up another building and they
quickly informed their lawyer to write to the 2nd Defendant to stop the
exercise. That on the 31-10-03, their Solicitor wrote to 2nd Defendant to stop
the exercise. That inspite of the warning, the 2nd Defendant continue to work
on the property and maintains that the 1st Defendant gave him the authority to
do so, hence this action. <o:p></o:p>On
receipt of the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons and statement of Claim, the
Defendants reacted by filing their statement of defence. In particular, the
Defendants aver that, the 2nd Defendant was engaged to improve the disputed
property on the instruction and authority of the 1st Defendant. The Defendants
continued that, the Plaintiffs on realizing that the value of the disputed
property has immensely appreciated rather encouraged them. The Defendants
concluded that, the 1st Defendant as customary successor is entitled to deal
with the disputed property especially in the manner in which he together with
the 2nd Defendant are doing and aver further that the Plaintiffs have no
capacity to maintain this action and they also have no cause of action against
the defendants. <o:p></o:p>At
the close of pleadings, two main issues were set down for trial. <o:p></o:p>1.
Whether or not the Plaintiffs are the principal members of the family of both
Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant. <o:p></o:p>2.
Whether or not 1st Defendant authorized the 2nd Defendant to do anything on the
property especially the way and manner, which he asked the 2nd Defendant to do.
<o:p></o:p>At
the trial Plaintiffs testified through 3rd Plaintiff and called one witness.
Defendants also testified and called one witness. At the end of the trial,
Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff: Dissatisfied with the
judgment, Defendants have appealed to this court. <o:p></o:p>In
the Notice of Appeal filed, five grounds of appeal were flied and they are as
follows:— <o:p></o:p>1.
The trial court erred when it held that the 1st Defendant/Appellant who is the
head of family could not let out family land in his possession to the 2nd
Defend</main>