Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor & 2 Ors Vrs [2021] GHASC 188 (13 January 2021)

Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor & 2 Ors Vrs [2021] GHASC 188 (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 by patrilineal descent nor authorized by the family. The withdrawal of the two acknowledged family members as co-plaintiffs 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 188
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Atteh Sappor); Defendant/respondent: Very Rev. Solomon Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Ebenezer Tekpetey Akwetey Sappor); Defendant/respondent: William Tetteh Sappor; Defendant/respondent: Frederick Nmonmlotey Sappor; Defendant/respondent: Fred Dugbartey Sappor; Defendant/respondent: Alhaji Tudjani
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Family Property, Locus Standi, Customary Succession
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Succession Customary Law Capacity to Sue Family Property Locus Standi Customary Succession

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kasseke Akoto Dugbartey Sappor (substituted by Atteh Sappor)

Plaintiff/appellant

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

Defendant/respondent

William Tetteh Sappor

Defendant/respondent

Frederick Nmonmlotey Sappor

Defendant/respondent

Fred Dugbartey Sappor

Defendant/respondent

Alhaji Tudjani

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal (supreme Court)

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 withdrawal of co-plaintiffs affected the appellant's capacity
  3. 3 Who qualifies as a member of a family under Ghanaian customary law for purposes of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant lacked capacity to maintain the action or appeal on behalf of the Sappor family, as he was not a member by patrilineal descent nor authorized by the family. The withdrawal of the two acknowledged family members as co-plaintiffs 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 dismissed for want of capacity/locus standi.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal and trial High Court affirmed.