SAPPOR AND OTHERS VRS. SAPPOR AND OTHERS (J4/46/2020) [2021] GHASC 198 (13 January 2021)

SAPPOR AND OTHERS VRS. SAPPOR AND OTHERS (J4/46/2020) [2021] GHASC 198 (13 January 2021)

The appellant lacked capacity to maintain the action or appeal on behalf of the Sappor family, as he was not a member of the family by patrilineal descent nor authorized by the family. The withdrawal of the two co-plaintiffs, who had capacity, before the appeal was heard, left the appellant without standing. Capacity is a fundamental requirement and its absence is fatal to the proceedings.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 198
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Atteh Sappor); Defendant/respondent/respondent: Very Rev. Solomon Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Ebenezer Tekpetey Akwetey Sappor); Defendant/respondent/respondent: William Tetteh Sappor; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Frederick Nmonmlotey Sappor; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Fred Dugbartey Sappor; Defendant/respondent/respondent: Alhaji Tudjani
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Case Number
J4/46/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Family Property, Locus Standi, Customary Succession, Appeals Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Succession Law Customary Law Capacity to Sue Family Property Locus Standi Customary Succession Appeals Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Atteh Sappor)

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Very Rev. Solomon Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Ebenezer Tekpetey Akwetey Sappor)

Defendant/respondent/respondent

William Tetteh Sappor

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Frederick Nmonmlotey Sappor

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Fred Dugbartey Sappor

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Alhaji Tudjani

Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had capacity/locus standi to institute and maintain the action on behalf of the Sappor family
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of co-plaintiffs at the appeal stage affected the appellant's capacity
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal for want of capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant lacked capacity to maintain the action or appeal on behalf of the Sappor family, as he was not a member of the family by patrilineal descent nor authorized by the family. The withdrawal of the two co-plaintiffs, who had capacity, before the appeal was heard, left the appellant without standing. Capacity is a fundamental requirement and its absence is fatal to the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal and trial High Court affirmed