GHANA PRIVATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNION OF TUC GH KPANDO BRANCH AND 5 ORS vs. DANIEL YAO DZIDE, UNITY CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY AND PROGRESSIVE TRANSPORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (PROTOA) [2019]DLCA8848

GHANA PRIVATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNION OF TUC GH KPANDO BRANCH AND 5 ORS vs. DANIEL... [2019]DLCA8848

Date	2019-12-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/06/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA8848

MABEL M. AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA (PRESIDING)

ALEX B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA

MERLEY A. WOOD (MRS.) JA

OSCAR VULOR FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

KOKA FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.

[2019]DLCA8848
																																						<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" >GHANA PRIVATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNION OF TUC
GH KPANDO BRANCH AND 5 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;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>DANIEL YAO DZIDE, UNITY CO-OPERATIVE
TRANSPORT SOCIETY AND PROGRESSIVE TRANSPORT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (PROTOA)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS
/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, HO]<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:
H1/06/2019&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: 18TH DECEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSCAR
VULOR FOR 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">

KOKA FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MABEL
M. AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA (PRESIDING), ALEX B. POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA, MERLEY A. WOOD (MRS.)
JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>AGYEMANG JA:<o:p></o:p>In this interlocutory appeal against the ruling of
the High Court, Ho, delivered on 30th July 2018, the defendants/appellants seek
the setting aside of the aforesaid ruling.<o:p></o:p>These are the matters that have given rise to the
instant interlocutory appeal.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs/respondents (hereafter referred to alternately
as the plaintiffs, or the respondents), commenced suit against the defendants/appellants
(defendants or appellants) for inter alia, a declaration of title to all
that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Kpando, in use as a vehicle
terminal (lorry park), bounded on one side by the main Accra-Kpando road, on
another side by the Kpando-Kudzra road and the Tsava stream and on the other
side by the Ekpe family land and on the last side by the Liberty Lodge and
Kpando old public cemetery; recovery of possession, arrears of rent, an order
to set aside any Registration and Land Title made in favour of the defendants,
as well as injunctive relief against the defendants and their privies. <o:p></o:p>The suit was brought by the first plaintiff who
described himself as the head of the Sam Dzide family of Kpando Tsakpe Tsadome,
and that the suit had been brought as a representative one for the said family.
The first defendant was described as a unionised body engaged inter alia
in transport business and the other defendants were described as elected
officers of the first defendant.<o:p></o:p>In the course of time, two other persons: unionised
bodies engaged in the transport business operating from the Kpando Lorry Park,
acting by their respective Chairmen: Francis Kweku Adjei and Joseph Doh, were
joined to the suit as the second and third plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>The first plaintiff later appointed one Francis
Kweku Adjei, the representative of the second plaintiff, as his lawful attorney
to prosecute the instant suit on his behalf. <o:p></o:p>The suit took its normal course and hearing began.
The said lawful attorney of the first plaintiff and the representative of the
second plaintiff (Francis Kweku Adjei) who had given a witness statement, was
cross-examined at length. Another witness (PW1) who had also given a witness
statement was undergoing cross-examination when two things occurred: the first
plaintiff as well as the second defendant’s representative passed on.<o:p></o:p>Following this, a notice of motion for the
substitution of one Francis Kwame Dzide for the first plaintiff was filed. In
the supporting affidavit, the deponent: the said Francis Kwame Dzide deposed
that upon the death of the first plaintiff, the wider Dzide family had
appointed him as head of the Sam Dzide family of Kpando-Tsakpe Tsadome, and
that the said appointment gave him a direct interest in the disputed land which
formed part of the Sam Dzide family lands. He deposed that he had the consent
of the accredited elders of the family to apply to be substituted for the
deceased first plaintiff.&nbsp; Attached to
the supporting affidavit was a statutory declaration by persons who styled
themselves the principal members of the John Dzide, Nathaniel Dzide, and Sam
Dzide families of Kpando Tsakpe Tsadome. <o:p></o:p>The said declarants averred therein that they had
unanimously appointed the said Francis Kwame Dzide, the successor of his late
father the first plaintiff (deceased), and the head and lawful representative
of Sam Dzide family.<o:p></o:p>An affidavit filed in opposition was deposed to by
the sixth defendant: Jude Yao Dzide who described himself as a member of the
Sam Dzide family. It was his assertion that the deceased first plaintiff’s
successor had not been appointed, and that the persons who swore to the said
statutory declaration had no right to make such appointment. He deposed that
the said persons were not members of the Sam Dzide family - a family that
comprised the children of the late Kofi Dzide, Frank Shine Dzide, and the
deceased Daniel Yao Dzide. He alleged the Sam Dzide family as constituted, to
have the sole prerogative of naming one of their own as head of family. Nor he
alleged, could such appointment of head of family be made as was alleged, before
the burial of the first deceased. Attached to the affidavit in opposition were
two documents allegedly made: the first (JYD1), sworn to by one Randy Yaw
Dzide, and the other (JYD2), jointly sworn to by Jude Yao Dzide and Akosua
Dzide in which the said persons asserted that as the children of Kofi Dzide and
the late Frank Shine Dzide, they were the proper persons to choose the head of
the Sam Dzide family, and not the persons who had purported to do so in the
statutory declaration aforesaid. By the said documents, the authors allegedly
stated that the said Kwame Dzide had not been endorsed by them as the head of
their family.<o:p></o:p>In view of these gravely contentious matters, the</main>