ARABA FAHUNDZI v. KOBINA DADZI AND CHIEF KWA KRASSIE acting for himself as head and on behalf of OKAA ANONA family etc.

Judgment:

This is an appeal from the Native Court " A " of Saltpond who entered judgment for the plaintiff against the two defendants for the recovery of possession of a house, together with £85 damages for her wrongful dispossession thereof.

The facts are as follows:

A Judgment had been recovered in the Native Court by the 2nd Defendant for a sum of money against a man named Kobina Oku Appiah. The debt remained unpaid.

Proceedings were taken by the Judgment Creditor (2nd Defendant) under part 16 of the Native Courts (Colony) Procedure Regulations, 1945 , and the house, which is the subject of this action, was sold on the 29 th November, 1944 to the 1st Defendant, Kobina Dadzie, at an auction sale conducted under the direction of the Registrar of the Native Court.

The purchaser obtained from the Native Court on the 21st December, 1944 a certificate of purchase of the right title and interest of Kobina Oku-Appiah in this house in question. The copy of this certificate, in the body refers to the interest of Kofi Dadzie but clearly is either a clerical or a typographical error.

Now the evidence is quite clear that the purchaser the 1st Defendant then went to the Native Court and enquired as to how he could get possession of this house. And this is where the Native Court went wrong. The Native Court then issued a Writ of Possession which was executed by Police Officer Abraham O. Ansah on the 15th February, 1945, acting upon instructions to remove the plaintiff from the house and to give to the 1st Defendant possession.

There is no evidence as to who gave these instructions to this officer.

Now it is quite clear that the acts, from which the Plaintiff complains she has suffered loss, are the acts of the Police officer executing a Writ of the Court and acting, as one may say, on behalf of the Court; following the well known rule of law derived from a long list of cases.

A sheriff's officer, as was this policeman, was doing his duty as an officer of the Court, and is not a servant or agent of the 1st Defendant, who obtained the writ of possession. There may be circumstances which show that the person in the position of the 1st defendant has by intervention made the sheriff his agent to do something which was not covered by the writ of execution But, in my view, there is no evidence justifying any finding as to any special directions having been given to this officer by the 1 st defendant. That is enough to dispose of the case as regards the defendant Kob