ALLOTEY AND OTHERS v. QUARCOO
January 22, 1981
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ANIN J.S.C.
- EDUSEI
- MENSA BOISON JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
January 22, 1981
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Anin J.S.C., delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment, explained why the court allowed the appeal and set aside a High Court ruling in the Onamrokor Adain family’s succession dispute in Gbese, Accra. A 1974 settlement made B. A. Quarcoo and Manye Adorkor Allotey joint heads with a council of six elders. In 1976, Quarcoo faced charges at a family meeting; plaintiffs claimed he answered and the meeting ended, but a poster two days later announced his deposition. The trial judge initially limited trial to whether the meeting concluded, yet decided numerous unpleaded issues and framed judicial oversight broadly. Emphasising fair notice in pleadings and courts’ limited, supervisory role over family decisions—intervening only upon a substantial denial of justice—the Supreme Court found the meeting continued, concluded with a vote and customary rites, and definitively deposed Quarcoo. The court dismissed the claim and awarded ¢500 costs to the defendants.
JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.S.C.
Anin J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 16 December 1980, we allowed this appeal and reserved our reasons. We proceed to give them now.
Since the death of Dr. C. E. Reindorf on 11 April 1968, the Onamrokor Adain family of Gbese, Accra, has been embroiled in protracted internecine litigation concerning his successor as head of family. The first suit entitled B. A. Quarcoo v. Manye Adorkor Allotey and Messrs. C.F.C. ended in a judgment incorporating an amicable settlement promoted by the La Mantse and Mr. Justice Nii Amaa Ollennu and filed in the court below on 23 December 1974. Under the terms of settlement, the plaintiff and the first defendant who incidentally fill the same roles in the present suit, were appointed joint family heads and it was also agreed that accredited representatives of the six constituent branches of the family should constitute elders and councillors to assist the joint heads in their administration of the family and its properties. The six elders who were selected by their respective branches of the family are the second plaintiff-non-respondent (now deceased) and the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants-appellants in the present action—the second in the series, commenced by a writ of summons filed on 3 June 1976. The reliefs claimed therein were: (a) a declaration that the first plaintiff is still the joint head of the Onamrokor Adain family and that he has not been constitutionally and customarily deposed, and (b) an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the family lands until the determination of the suit.
In the amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs first referred to the earlier suit and settlement reached and the formation of the [p.211] council of elders as briefly recounted above. It was next stated that the defendants herein invited the first plaintiff to a family meeting to answer five specified charges preferred against him, i.e. mismanagement of family property; failure to account for family moneys collected by him; unauthorised sale of family lands; refusal to co-operate with family council; and lack of respect and consideration for the other joint head, Manye Adorkor Allotey, as well as the elders of the family constituting the family council. These charges were allegedly answered by the first plaintiff in a letter dated 20 February 1976. It was further stated in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim that the plaintiffs attended the proposed