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
1923
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal regarding a judgment that recognized Yao Wusu as the lawful successor of Atta Parbi and determined that the defendant had not repaid a 30 loan. Arguments were made concerning procedural issues and the Statutes of Limitations. The appeal was dismissed based on legal principles that procedural objections should be raised in the lower court and that the Statutes of Limitations between natives apply only when there is clear intent to be governed by English Law. Bruce Crabbes ruling was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed 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.