DZANKU v. AFALENU AND ANOTHER
September 25, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- KINGSLEY-NYINAH J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Equity and Trusts
September 25, 1968
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a preliminary ruling within a land dispute involving the Aforkpo family of Klepe and property at Ho Bankoe, Kingsley‑Nyinah J addressed whether Phanuel Kodjo Dzanku could continue to sue as the family’s attorney after the death of one donor of a 1953 power of attorney. Dzanku, appointed by family heads Komla Anku and Sappeh Kwasi, had acted under the instrument for fifteen years. The first defendant denied his authority based on Kwasi’s death. The judge defined powers of attorney, construed the 1953 instrument as a special authority for litigation concerning family land, and found that the surviving donor, Anku, remains head of family. Emphasizing prolonged acquiescence and equity, the court held the power remains valid until properly revoked by Anku’s death or due custom. The submission was overruled, the suit ordered to proceed with Dzanku as plaintiff, and costs awarded in his favor.
JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.
By Paragraph (1) of his statement of claim, the plaintiff herein, positively avers that he "is the lawful attorney and an elder of the Aforkpo family of Klepe and sues for and on behalf of Komla Anku and Sappeh Kwasi the heads and representatives of the Aforkpo family of Klepe.” The plaintiff further positively avers in paragraph (4) that in 1953, he "was appointed as attorney of the Aforkpo family with the consent and concurrence of the heads and the principal members of the said Aforkpo family of Klepe, and he is still the lawful attorney of the said family." There is in very fact, a power of attorney dated 28 September 1953. That document clearly shows Komla Anku and Sappeh Kwasi as the donors for and on behalf of the Aforkpo family of Klepe, and Phanuel Kodjo Dzanku, the plaintiff herein, as the donee of the power.
Turning to the statement of defence filed by the first defendant, we find him roundly denying the averments and claims made by the plaintiff as to the question of his appointment as lawful attorney. In the course of the arguments of all learned counsel herein, the [p.793] defendants pressed that point and urged that with the death of one of the donors of the power of attorney appointing the plaintiff herein, the power failed completely and ceased to have any force or effect or either.
What is a “power of attorney”? It is described as a formal document whereby one person empowers another to stand in his stead, or to represent him, for certain specific purposes. It may either be a special power, or else a general power. In the case of the latter, the general power, the person unto whom the power is given, the donee, becomes invested with full power to do such periodic acts as carrying on a business or collecting debts belonging to the donor of the power. Where the power is special, however, the donor of the power confines the donee to the doing of certain specified acts.
After carefully reading and considering the power of attorney which formed the subject-matter of learned counsel’s arguments, I am satisfied to construe it as an authority specifically empowering the plaintiff to act for and on behalf of the Aforkpo family of Ho, in and concerning all matters touching and “affecting the Aforkpo family land situate lying and being at Ho Bankoe”. It is an authority containing precise instructions as to how the power shall be executed by the plaintiff. In my view, the essence of this power is the right of the