Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
DUOSE, J.A. :- This is an appeal from the decision of an Accra High Court in a
consolidated suit dated 21/03/08 . The judgment granted all the reliefs sought in the first
suit except the claim for general damages for personal injuries done to Paul Ayitey Tetteh
on the ground that “the action did not survive him personally, because of the “Plaintiff
having died during the pendency of the suit, he is not entitled to general damages.”
The second suit issued by the Defendants to the original suit was dismissed and the
counter claim therein was granted with costs of ¢20,000,000.00 against the Defendants in
both suits. For purposes of these appeals I shall refer to the Plaintiff in the first suit and
the Defendants in the second suit as Respondents and the Defendants in the first suit who
were Plaintiff in the second suit as Appellants.
Being dissatisfied by the judgment, the Appellants filed in all eighteen grounds of
appeal, but argued only five of them. They are (1) ground one of additional grounds of
appeal filed on 22-05-07. (2) additional ground one filed on 04-08-06. (3) ground two
of second additional ground of appeal filed on 22—05-07, (4) ground three of first
additional grounds of appeal and (5) ground four of additional grounds of appeal filed on
On the other hand the Respondents filed three grounds by way of cross appeal and
argued all three.
I now proceed to consider the grounds of appeal filed and argued seriatim.
1 (1) Ground one of Additional grounds of appeal filed on 22-05-07.
The trial of the action Paul Ayitey Tetteh instituted in 2002
Challenging the legality of his removal as head of family was a
nullity because the motion to substitute some one for him as Plaintiff
after his death was not taken and granted so there was no existing
Plaintiff before the court when that suit was heard and judgment
given in his favour.
(2) The trial judge erred in law in not striking out the suit No. F. 2453/2002
when Nii Paul Ayitey Tetteh died since the action instituted by him
was to vindicate his personal status as head of the Onamrokor – Adain
family and the cause of action did not survive his death.
In his argument learned counsel evoked the common law maxim “actio personalis montur
cum persona” and stated that the action taken by the Respondent was to vindicate his
personal status as head of the Onamroko Adain Family which the Appellants were
usurping Having died before he could vindicate his position the cause of action