Nana Ofori Atta II & Anor V. Nana Bonsra Agyei & Anor (1952)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal
Estoppel—Previous suit—Person privy to plaintiff—Person in same interest standing by.
Facts
There had been a previous action in which the Stool of Muronam litigated against the Banka Stool the title to a piece of land; the Banka Stool won. The case now under appeal related to the same land.
The appellants were the plaintiffs below, No. 1 being the Paramount Chief of Akim Abuakwa, to whom the Muronam Stool is subject, and No. 2 the head of the Muronam Stool; they at first sued the representative of the Stool of Adanse, but he asked for his master, the Banka Stool, to be joined as co-defendant. The defendants denied plaintiffs’ claim and also pleaded the former judgment as estoppel.
The trial Judge held that plaintiff No. 2 (the Muronam Stool) was estopped thereby having been a party in the previous action, and that as plaintiff No. 1 was suing on the plea that the Muronam Stool lands are attached to the paramount Akita Abuakwa, he, also, was estopped from questioninga judgment obtained against a Stool claiming under him, as the issue in the previous action was about the title itself to the land and he knew of that action and had a right to intervene but did not.
The trial Judge dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed, in substance on the
grounds that the parties were not the same as before and that the trial Judge was wrong in holding that the Paramount chief of Akim Abuakwa knew of, or had a duty to intervene in the previous case.
Held
(1) As regards the second plaintiff, now appellant No. 2: in the previous case between him and the person now respondent No. 2, there was a judgment against him in regard to the title to the land in dispute, therefore he was estopped from re-litigating the title to the same land.
(2) (a) As regards the first plaintiff, now appellant No. 1: the opening statement in the former suit and the writ and statement of claim in the present suit show that the land is claimed as the property of the Muronam Stool and that Akim Abuakwa’s interest is only by virtue of Muronam’s allegiance to Akim Abuakwa; Akim Abuakwa can only establish an interest in the land by establishing the title of the Muronam Stool and is therefore privy to the Muronam Stool and estopped from re-litigating the title by the judgment in the previous suit against the Muronam Stool.
(b) Appellant No. 1 had, as above stated, the same interest as appellant No. 2 m the previous action; the proceedings in that case showed that appellant No. 1 knew about them, but having stood by in that action by appellant No. 2 in which the defence claimed that the land belonged to another paramount Stool, was estopped from re-opening the question of Muronam’s title to the land.
Appeal dismissed.
