NII PAUL AYITEY TETTEH, TETTEH QUARCOO vrs ... - Jtighana.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a joint Head of Onamrokor – Adain family for “Mismanagement of family Property, failure to account for family monies collected by him, unauthorized sales of family lands, refusal to Co-operate with family Council and lack of respect and consideration of the other joint head, Manye Adokor Allotey as well as the elders of the family constituting the family Council.” X X X 12. The Plaintiff says that the 1 st Defendant is by the said judgment estopped to put himself forward as a head of the Onamrokor-Adain family even if he were to be a true member of the family. 13. The Plaintiff therefore says that it is very contemptuous on the part of the Defendants herein and all their collaborators to have made various publications in the newspapers and in the form of circulars to both Official and Customary institutions in the country announcing the 1 st Defendant as having been appointed the Head of Onamrokor-Adain family with the 2 nd Defendant as his deputy as from 12/4/2002 in the face of the judgment and without the knowledge of the members of the present council of the family headed by the Plaintiff. X X X 15. The Plaintiff says that the 2 nd Defendant who is a true son of the Onamrokor-Adain family and is grown enough to have been well seized with the facts here presented has teemed up with the 1 st Defendant because he knows that the 1 st Defendant is over 90 years in age and therefore he can use him to alienate the lands of the family and misappropriate the proceeds. 16. This assessment of the 2 nd Defendant is born out by the fact that it is he who has put up a sign board directing people who want part of the family’s land to his house. 6
17. The Plaintiff again says that he is convinced in his such assessment of the 2 nd Defendant by the directions as per a drawing he has obtained a copy of, sent to the Land Registry and Lands Commission directing interested land acquisitioners to his house. X X X 21. The Plaintiff says that he sees the actions of the Defendants as a calculated plan to bring confusion in the family by influencing the ignorant young and older members of the family to be seem to be supporting them with promises of financial gain from the monies but Plaintiff says that a number of those collaborators of the Defendants claimed to have elected them to the positions they now claim to hold are not true members of Onamrokor-Adain family.” This suit was supported by the evidence of witnesses from the family. It is trite law that a person can sue in several capacities, see Akrong v. Bulley (1965) GLR 496 S.C. Assuming therefore that the personal part of the suit did not survive Paul Ayitey Tetteh’s death that of the family marched on. Though the family sues per its head or other proper person it is legally distinct from such a person as an individual and does not die (unless by supernatural causation) with such an individual. There is close legal analogy between the head of a family and the occupant of a stool. Hence in Attah v. Aidoo(1968)GLR 362 at 365 Archer J (as he then was) said: “Mr. Gordon R. Woodman, in an exhaustive article on “Developments in pledges of land in Ghanaian customary law” in [1967 J.A.L. 8 at pp. 9-10 states: “There is no direct authority on the consents necessary for a valid pledge of an interest held by the customary-law corporate persons the stool and the family.” 7
Page 1 and 2: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
Page 3 and 4: The second writ is intituled BFA31/
Page 5: The Actio Personalis Rule And now t
Page 9 and 10: destooled in 1971; and if he had no
Page 11 and 12: the elders of the stool to take ste
Page 13 and 14: Effect of Wrong Reasons From all th
Page 15 and 16: (a) may grant an appellant leave to

NII PAUL AYITEY TETTEH, TETTEH QUARCOO vrs ... - Jtighana.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?