Chief Sokpui II & Ors V. Chief Tay Agbozo III & Ors (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Parties suing in a representative capacity in Native Court—Authority to sue peculiarly in province of Native Court to determine—Observations on the necessity for a plan in a Land Cass.

Facts

The plaintiff-appellants sued in a representative capacity in the Native Court for themselves and on behalf of the general community of Dzelukope. The Native Court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were duly authorised to sue in a representative capacity and came to the conclusion they were not, and dismissed the claim.

After appeal to the Native Court of Appeal and to the Land Court the case came on appeal to this Court, where the manner in which the Native Court should determine the right to sue in a representative capacity was considered.

The Court also considered whether or not a plan was essential in all cases relating to land and explained and distinguished the case of Sahpahu & Others v. Ahiaku 6 Others (1).

Held

Where the authority of persons to sue in a representative capacity is, challenged the onus is on them to satisfy the Court that they have been duly authorized. Further, that the manner in which persons can be authorised is matter peculiarly ,within the province of a Native Court to determine,
The case of Sakpaku & Others v. Ahiaku & Others (1) did not decide that a plan was essential in every case dealing with land. What the Court, has to consider is not a general rule but whether in a particular case, it is necessary to the proper trial for a plan to be produced.

Appeal dismissed.