ATTA PARBI AND YAO WUSU per Captain AWUDU FRAFRA. v. J. K. MUFFATT.
1923
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
- SMYLY, C. J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
1923
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Chief Justice Smyly heard an appeal from District Commissioner Bruce Crabbe concerning a claim that the defendant owed £30 borrowed from Atta Parbi. The lower court found that Yao Wusu was the lawful successor to Atta Parbi under Native Custom and that the defendant admitted receiving the £30 but could not prove repayment. On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent should have sued in a representative capacity under Order XLIII, rule 1 and that the ten-year-old debt was barred by the Statutes of Limitations, pointing to a promissory note. Smyly C.J. observed that the promissory note copy appeared unstamped and stressed precedent (William Quartey v. Akua, Redwar, 138) holding that limitation statutes apply between natives only where there is evidence of an agreement to be governed by English law. Finding other evidence of the debt and no such intention, the court dismissed the appeal with costs.
SMYLY, C. J.-This is an appeal from a judgment of His Worship Bruce Crabbe Esqr., District Commissioner, in the above matter, on the 27th May 1922, in which he found as facts proved. "(I) Yao Wusu was the lawful successor of Atta Parbi according "to Native Custom. (2) Receipt of £30 by defendant from Atta "Parbi-Defendant admits receiving this loan of £30, but unable "to prove repayment".
The Appeal has been argued on two grounds:- That under Order XLIII, rule 1, the respondent should have sued in a representative capacity; (2) Statutes of Limitations, debt ten years old, and a promissory note made by the defendant. As regards the promissory note, I have not got the original, but it does not appear to have been stamped, from the copy. As regards ground (1), the Court below has found as a fact that the plaintiff is the lawful successor of Atta Parbi, according to Native Custom; also it appears to me an objection which should have been taken in the Court below, and not in the Appeal Court. As regards the Statutes of Limitations, it was held in the case of William Quartey v. Akua, Redwar, 138 , that the Statutes of Limitations only apply in a suit between natives, when the evidence shows that the parties intended that their obligations should be regulated by English Law. I do not consider that the mere making of a document, necessarily implies such an agreement, especially where it is incomplete. In the present case, there is evidence of the debt, apart from the document in question. It would be a different matter if the only evidence of the debt was the promissory note.
Appeal dismissed with costs.