SABBAH AND OTHERS v. WORBI AND OTHERS
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J
Areas of Law
- Customary Law
- Property Law
- Family Law
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal by the third and fourth co-defendants was dismissed because they have no appealable interest. The head of the family is the proper person to sue and be sued on behalf of the family according to customary law, and any other family member joining the suit cannot represent a separate interest.
JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON–BENJAMIN J.
When this appeal finally came on for hearing Mr. Bossman for the respondents raised the preliminary point that there is no appeal before the court on the part of the third and fourth co-defendants because they have no appealable interest. The case was between two opposing families. According to customary law the head of the family is the proper person to sue and be sued on behalf of the family. And where he does so, the interest represented by him is exhaustive, and any other person who join the head of family can represent no other interest. If therefore the case is decided against the family, the head of the family is the proper person to appeal, and no other person can do so. He placed strong reliance on the case of Medienhia v. Nyabi.1
In this case the head of family was admittedly E. T. Sabbah, the first defendant. The third and fourth defendants applied during the trial before the local court to be made co-defendants because they were interested in the land in dispute and also on the further ground that their advice would be of help or assistance to the first defendant. Nowhere is any indication of any special interest in the land in dispute disclosed beyond the ordinary interest of members of the family in family land. The local court however made an order for joining them as co-defendants. Judgment was given against the defendants and the co-defendants and the first defendant who is the head of family did not appeal. The third and fourth defendants claim that being parties to the suit, they are entitled to appeal. The right of appeal is statutory and is contained in section 126 of the Courts Act, 1960.2 It provides:
“126. Any party aggrieved by a decision of a Local Court on an issue relating to land or an interest in land or a succession cause involving land may appeal to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court.”
It is therefore essential to any appeal from a local court that it must be by a party who is aggrieved by the decision, and the point that arises is whether a person can be aggrieved by a decision in a case to which he should never have been a party. In other words, [p.89] whether where there is a head of family representing the family in litigation, any other member of the family can be made a party to the dispute in the same interest, and if not, whether such joinder, if wrongly made can confer on such party a right of appeal. The test it seems to me is whether the person appealing could