ANKRAH v. ANKRAH
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU
- APALOO
- LASSEY JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Customary law
- Estoppel
- Res judicata
1966
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, and restored the judgment of the local court in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. The case dealt with issues of customary succession and the principles of estoppel and res judicata.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.
The plaintiff-appellant herein, and the defendant-respondent herein, are sister and brother of the whole blood. The suit commenced with a writ of summons issued out in the Local Court B of Nsaba on 16 March 1960; judgment was given by that court in favour of the plaintiff on 11 November 1960, but the same was set aside by the High Court, Cape Coast, on 17 November 1961, on the ground of irregularity, and a new trial was ordered. It was eventually tried by the Nyakrom-Nkum Local Court.
The writ of summons is in the nature of pleadings and it is as follows:
"The plaintiff was in 1957, declared the customary successor to the late Kofi Eburahin by the head and principal members of her family. Plaintiff then being a native doctor living at Mankesim, could not manage the affairs reposed on her and therefore appointed the defendant to act for her. Plaintiff has now come home and is asking for her right but the defendant has flatly refused to recognise her as such. Plaintiff therefore sues the defendant to show cause why he should not relinquish the acting appointment and offer the plaintiff the full right to enjoy her succession."
The defendant pleaded not liable, and contended that he is successor in his own right, and that he is not acting for and on behalf of his sister, the plaintiff. He thus traversed the material averments made by the plaintiff, namely, (i) that she is the duly appointed successor to late Kofi Eburahin, and (ii) that the defendant is in charge of the estate as acting successor and agent of the plaintiff.
Two issues were therefore joined for determination, namely,
(i) whether the plaintiff is the duly appointed successor to Kofi Eburahin, and if she is;
(ii) whether the defendant's management of the estate is as an acting successor appointed by the plaintiff.
Under customary law a successor may appoint another member of the family to exercise the office for him, but such appointment must be with the approval of the family since the estate is vested in the family, and the family must be satisfied as to the suitability of the [p.65] person who would take charge of and administer it in the absence of the successor. Since the plaintiff admits by her pleadings that the defendant was administering the estate at the date and at all material times, the main issue the local court had to determine was the first issue, namely, whether or not the plaintiff is the duly appointed successor to Kofi Eburahin. This, in no