JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
This suit was commenced by one Salome Aku Allotey. She sued in a dual capacity namely as successor and head of the family of the late Herbert Charles Kotey deceased. She, the said Salome Aku Allotey, died in April, 1961, while the case was pending and the present plaintiff was, upon his application, substituted for her by order of the court dated the 14th June, 1961. The claim is for accounts of rents collected by the defendants from premises known as house No. D930/3, an order for the ejectment of the defendants from the said house, and an injunction.
The first three defendants are children of the said Herbert Charles Kotey, and the fourth defendant is his grandson.
Although the writ and all pleadings filed on behalf of the plaintiff were filed by a solicitor, and the said solicitor did appear as counsel in the case on a number of occasions to take adjournment, he failed to turn up when the case came on for trial, although he was present in court on the 10th October, 1961 and agreed with the first and fourth defendants who appeared in person that day that the case be fixed for trial on the 16th October, 1961. The case remained on the list from that date up to the 19th October, 1961, when hearing commenced but he never turned up throughout the trial, and so the plaintiff had to conduct the case on his own.
Due apparently to the handicap of conducting his case himself, the plaintiff was not able in his evidence in chief to disclose the exact nature of his case. But by the close of the very lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination to which he was subjected he had painted a picture which vividly portrayed his case in a clear light as will be seen presently. That case is, that he is a member of the maternal family of which the late Herbert Charles Kotey was at one time the head; the said Herbert Charles Kotey as such head was succeeded by Salome Aku Allotey, the [p.596] original plaintiff; that the said family are the owners of the property in dispute entitled to immediate possession and control thereof, and to receive rents and mesne profits accruing therefrom; and that he has been appointed and authorised by the said family to prosecute this suit.
It was submitted by counsel for the defendants, properly in my view, that the substitution of the present plaintiff for the original plaintiff is not conclusive that the plaintiff is authorised to represent the family; counsel therefore submitted that the plaintiff must fail because he
