DAVID NII ODOI ANNAN, EMMANUEL DANIEL ANNAN AND KADORE CHAMBERS ACCRA. vs. MADAM LYDIA ARYEE ACCRA [2016]DLCA8443

DAVID NII ODOI ANNAN, EMMANUEL DANIEL ANNAN AND KADORE CHAMBERS ACCRA. vs. MADA... [2016]DLCA8443

Date	2016-10-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/191/06
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA8443

MARFUL-SAU JA(PRESIDING)

AGNES DORDZIE JA

L.L. MENSAH JA

NATHANIEL MYERS FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

DAVID ANNAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENTS

[2016]DLCA8443
																																						<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" >DAVID NII ODOI ANNAN, EMMANUEL
DANIEL ANNAN AND KADORE CHAMBERS ACCRA.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/
RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>MADAM LYDIA ARYEE ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/
APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/191/06&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;<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">DATE: <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">27TH <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:
minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">OCT, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NATHANIEL MYERS FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DAVID ANNAN FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/ 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
JA(PRESIDING), AGNES DORDZIE JA, L.L. MENSAH JA<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU,JA :<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal taken against the judgment of the High Court, Accra dated the 27th
May 2005. The brief facts of the case are that upon the death intestate of
Griffiths Yarlai Mensah Annan on the 26th May 1987, his family met and
appointed the plaintiffs/respondents herein after referred to as respondents,
to apply for Letters of Administration to administer the estate. The
defendant/appellant to be referred to as the appellant caveated the application
for the Letters of Administration, claiming that she was a customary wife and
entitled to be part of the administration of the estate of the deceased. The
respondents then commenced this action praying the court to (a) strike out the
Caveat filed by the appellant and (b) an order granting the respondents
administration of the estate of the deceased. The case proceeded to trial and
judgment was entered against the appellant. The court found that the appellant
was not able to discharge the evidential burden she assumed to prove on the
pleadings. The appellant thus filed this appeal against the judgment on the
30th of June 2005.<o:p></o:p>Appellant's
Notice of Appeal which is at page 153 of the record of appeal had two grounds
namely:-<o:p></o:p>''1.
The judgment is manifestly against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.The learned trial Judge erred in law when
he held that the five years that the defendant lived together with the deceased
as man and wife did not constitute consummation of their marriage.''<o:p></o:p>Rule
8 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19 states as follows:-<o:p></o:p>''Where
the grounds of an appeal allege misdirection or error in law, particulars of
the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated''.<o:p></o:p>Appellant's
ground (2) as I have reproduced above clearly sins against this rule and same
should not be entertained. The rule required the appellant to provide
particulars of the error of law alleged and having failed to so do that ground
will be struck out as incompetent. This court has in several decisions stressed
the need for appellants to strictly comply with the rules that regulate it proceedings.
In the case of Zabrama v. Segbedzi (1991) 1 GLR 221, this very court speaking
through Kpegah JA (as he then was) reiterated that the requirement of providing
particulars of an error of law or a misdirection alleged in a notice of appeal
is to put the respondent and the court on notice on the particular area of law
the dissatisfaction is alleged and helps to narrow down issues in the hearing
of the appeal. Again in the case of Dahabieh v. S. A. Tarqui and Brothers
(2001-2002) SCGLR 498, Adzoe JSC, while addressing a similar issue of non
compliance of Rule 6 (f) of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16, delivered himself
at page 504 of the report as follows:-<o:p></o:p>''Clearly,
the intention behind rule 6 is to narrow the issues on appeal and shorten the
hearing by specifying the error made by the lower court or by disclosing
whether or not a point at issue had earlier on been raised, both the court and
counsel for the respondent would be enabled to concentrate on the relevant parts
of the evidence in the record of proceedings and not waste time on irrelevant
parts of the evidence. With respect to questions of law, it is necessary that
the respondent and his lawyer know well in advance what points of law are being
raised so that they may prepare their case and marshal their authorities,
whiles an indication that the point of law was not raised in the court below
may help the court resolve the issue faster.'' &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Besides,
it has been held that an appeal is a creature of statute and an appellant who
seeks to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of a court must comply with the
rules or law that vests such an appellant the right to appeal. See Nye v. Nye
(1967) GLR 76, CA. In this appeal therefore appellant's failure to comply with
rule 8(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19 renders ground(2) of the notice
of appeal bad in law and she cannot be heard on that ground, as I have already
held.<o:p></o:p>