The following judgments were delivered :WEBBER, C.]., SIERRA LEONE.
In the Court below an interpleader suit was brought by Akai Kofi Nettey as representing all the surviving children of Nii Nettey Quarshie, who claimed property seized under process of the Court in a suit between C. B. Nettey and The Gold Coast Independent Press Ltd., F. V. Nanka-Bruce, C. ]. Reindorf and D. C. Welbeck, which property consisted of land with buildings at Horse Road, Ussher Town, Accra, bounded on the north by Horse Road, on the south by a land, on the east by a public latrine, and on the west by properties of ]. Sackey and A. Adjin, and which property was so seized as the property of the judgment-debtor, C. B. Nettey.
In support of his claim, the plaintiff's affidavit alleges that (1) he is the eldest surviving son of the late Nii Nettey Quarshie, and (2) that this property attached is the property of the children of the late Nii Nettey Quarshie-that is to say the claimant claims this property as his together with the other children-and in his evidence on cross-examination he claims the property to be family property and states that he is the head of the family-yet he does not claim this property as head of the family nor does he claim it for himself and the children, but only as representing the children of the late Quarshie.
At the conclusion of the case the Court below, on the submission by Counsel for the execution-creditor that the claimant had no locus standi, decided that he had a right to interplead following the judgment in the case of M ahmudu v. Zenuah, W.A.C.A. 20th November, 1934*; and the Court further decided that the judgment-debtor was not in possession as sole owner and that the surviving children had an interest in the property and the Court thereupon ordered the release of the property from execution.
The appellants' Counsel filed ten grounds of appeal, but his argument was based on two main points, namely: (1) that plaintiff has no right to come to the Court and (2) that this property admittedly not being family property, the claimants had no interest therein.
I am of opinion that both these submissions are sound. It seems clear to me that the learned Judge treated the interpleader as a claim by members of a family to family land seized in execution, and he relied on the judgment in the case quoted above. In that case the property attached was in fact family property, and the learned Judges held that any member of a family could interplead if
