JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
The capacity in which the plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant was the ebusuapanyin of the Kukordo Ebiradze stool family of Fijai. The writ was filed on 4 December 1980. It is crystal clear from the pleadings filed by the defendant and co-defendant that they both by necessary implication admit that at the time the plaintiff filed his writ of summons he occupied the exalted and most revered position of ebusuapanyin of the Kukordo Ebiradze stool family to which all the parties belong. But both the defendant and the co-defendant, the latter being more vocal, aver in their pleadings that the plaintiff was removed from his office as head of the stool family at a meeting of the principal members of the stool family held sometime in February 1981. Most prominent among the averments in the co-defendant's amended statement of defence and counterclaim are paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 couched in the following terms:
"(2) The co-defendant says that some time in February 1981, the members of the family served the plaintiff with notice to attend a family meeting to be held on or about 8 February [p.63] 1981 to answer various charges failing which the family would proceed against him.
(3) The co-defendant says that the plaintiff refused to attend the said meeting.
(4) The co-defendant further says that in the absence of any explanation by the plaintiff, the family removed him as such head and notified him accordingly."
Mercer for the plaintiff in an application to this court, prays for an order that the co-defendant does, within fourteen days, serve on the plaintiff the following particulars:
"(a) The precise date of the alleged service of notice (there being only seven days between 1 and 8 February 1981)
(b) The manner of the alleged service of notice.
(c) By whom the alleged notice was served.
(d) The date and manner of the alleged notification referred to in paragraph 4 of the amended statement of defence.
The issue that crops up at this stage of the pleadings relates to family meetings under customary law. Our law insists that whenever it becomes necessary for a family meeting to be held for the purpose of appointing or removing a head of family, prior notice of such meeting should be given to all members of the family entitled by custom to participate in the appointment or removal, as the case may be, of a head of family: see Lartey v. Mensah and Dedei (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 410 and Welbeck v. M. Captan and Hammond (1956) 2 W
