Chief Yaw Krampa (Isaac Edward Nkrumah substituted) V. G. A. Sackey (1933)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Alternative claims —No cross-action—Court without power to enter judgment for plaintiff on one claim and for defendant on the other—Section 58 of the Native Adminatration Ordinance,
The plaintiff claimed to have a deed of conveyance cancelled (.1) upon the ground of fraud and (2) alternatively upon the ground that the pb,ff. had never
conveyed any land to the defendant The Divisional Court gavet for
the plaintiff on the first issue raised and for the defendant onsecond Or
alternative issue.
Held, on appeal, that since there was no cress-action the plaintiff was entitled to judgment if he succeeded on either of the alternative grounds upou which be band his claim, and that no judgment could he entered for the defendant in respect of the ground which failed. further, that in any case section 58 of the Native Administration Ordinance precluded the Court from deciding the question raised by the alternative ground of claim, namely, whether or not there had been a conveyance of the land in accordance with native custon2.
A Wu v. Baniu, F.C. 1920-29 page 470, considered and applied.
W. Ward Brew for the Plaintiff-Appellant. E. C. Quist for the Defendant-Respondent. The following judgments were delivered :—
MICHELIN, ACTING C.j. THE GOLD COAST COLONY.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgmentof Howes, J. dated the 19th July, 1932, in which he entered judgment for the plaintiff on the first part of his claim, and for the defendant on the second part of such claim.
On the appeal coming on for hearing before this Court, by consent of Counsel on each side one Isaac. Edward Nkrurnah was substituted for the plaintiff Chief Yaw Krampa, who had died since the judgment in the Court below was delivered.
In the writ of summons upon which this judgment was given the plaintiff claimed in a representative capacity as head of his family for and on behalf of the other members of such family that the deed of conveyance dated the 10th of April, 1919, alleged by the defendant to have been executed by the plaintiff and conveying a piece of land situate at Kwaman in the Winneba District and in the Agona Division, the property of the plaintiff’s family, be delivered up to this Court for cancellation on the grounds of fraud, or in the alternative a declaration that the plaintiff has never conveyed any piece or parcel of land to the defendant.
It seems clear to me from the wording of the writ that the plaintiff sought to set aside the deed on two alternative grounds :—-
- On the ground of fraud, and
- On the_ ground that there had been no conveyance of the land purporting to have been conveyed by this deed.
