GH - PANYIN AND OTHERS v. YAW

This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court Grade II, Axim. An action was instituted against the appellants herein by the respondent. For the purpose of this appeal, I would refer to the respondent as the plaintiff and the appellants as the defendants. The evidence adduced at the trial showed that the plaintiff and the defendants were members of the same family who traced their immediate ancestry to a woman called Amoo Yaaba who begat Amose Tanueh and J. E. Cudjoe. Assisted by her two children, Amoo Yaaba and a sister of hers by name Kwabla-ba jointly put up house No. 115, [p.1120] Lower Axim. Amoo Yaaba, Kwabla-ba and J. E. Cudjoe had all died at the time this action was instituted leaving Amose Tanueh as the only survivor among those who put up the house.

As the law clearly states, where two or more members of a family acquire property by their joint efforts the property assumes the character of family property: see Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws, p. 57. The plaintiff and the defendants are junior members of the Amoo Yaaba family, Amose Tanueh, head of the family had a room in the family house. Some time before the writ was issued, the third defendant without the knowledge of Amose Tanueh, forcibly broke into the latter's room and took possession of it by fixing a new lock and key, and gave the room to his mother, the first defendant.

The remaining rooms are all occupied by the third defendant and his brothers and sisters to the exclusion of the head of family and other members of the family. The head of the family, Amose Tanueh, not being pleased with the state of affairs appointed the plaintiff to institute an action to eject the third defendant and those members of the family who had taken possession of the house to the exclusion of all other members. The trial magistrate, in giving judgment against the defendants stated:

"As members of the family they are entitled to a share from the one-third for the family and not the whole. In this instance the defendants have deprived any other member of the family including Amose Tanueh, the only living co-owner from entering the house. It is my considered view that Amose Tanueh has the power to eject the defendants and I enter judgment for the plaintiff."

This decision has been attacked by counsel for the defendants as having been based upon wrong principles of law. Counsel submitted that members of a family cannot be ejected from a family house under any circumstances. Counsel for the plainti

PANYIN AND OTHERS v. YAW

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT