Appeal Court. 8th May,
1936. Appeal from Divisional
Court.
Attachment
of person of judgment debtor
under writ of Ca. Sa. when suing
in representative
capacity-Distinction between
person representing stool and
one suing as head of a family-In
native
law and custom head of family
is personally liable. -
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Attachment of person of Judgment
Debtor was lawful.
The facts are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
A.
G.
Heward-Mills
for Appellant.
K. A. Bossman
for Respondents.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST AND WEBBER, C.J.,
SIERRA LEONE.
On the 3rd February, 1936,
Yates, Acting Chief Justice,
ordered that a writ of Ca. Sa.
should issue against the
appellant for non· payment of.
costs of an appeal, but
suspended issue thereof for
four· teen days. He subsequently
granted a stay of execution
conditional on appellant paying
the amount of costs, £98, into
Court withiI1 fourteen days.
This sum having been duly paid
the writ of Ca. Sa. lapsed.
Appellant has appealed against
the issue of the writ. The only
ground of substance relied on is
that the costs in question were
ordered to be paid by him in an
action in which he sued in, as
shown on the writ, a
representative capacity, i.e. as
head of the Kreshil family. His
Counsel contended that appellant
having sued in tha1 capacity his
person could not be attached by
a writ of Ca. Sa. He cited, in
support of that contention, the
judgments in the
habeas corpus
proceedings,
Angwah Bennieh v. Abakah Kangah
and the case of G.
D. Oluyemo v. OheneAgyemfra IV
and another.
In the first 0 these cases Howes,
J., held that the arrest and
imprisonment of Bennieh, who
represented a stool, for
non-payment of costs arising out
of a suit brought in a
representative capacity was
illegal am ordered his immediate
release. In the other case
attachment of the two
judgment-debtors was refused by
Michelin, J .• on the ground
that the debt was due by the
stool and that the other members
of corporation were not before
the Court.
Respondent's Counsel has not
contested the soundness of these
decisions, but pointed out that
they were both given in cases
where the party mulcted in costs
represented a stool. He argued
that stool property is on a
different footing to family
property and that the
~:~:e: &
members of a family and the head
thereof are jointly and severally
responsible for any family
liability. In support of that
proposition
he quoted the following passage
from
Sarbah,
first edition, page 35 :-
"
Common liability to pay debts.
"
Not only does the customary law
render the person or persons who
defray the burial expenses of any
person liable and responsible for
the debts of the deceased, but, as
Bossman states, the members of a
family are jointly and severally
liable for any family liability.
If a member of a family contract
debt which benefits the family or
commit a wrong for which he is
liable to pay damages or give
satisfaction, the other members of
his family are bound to pay, or
such member must be given up by
the family to the person making
the claim."
He submitted that the position of
a head of a family was analogous
to that of a partner and pointed
out that by Order 43, Rule 10,
where the judgment is against
partners in the name of the firm
execution may issue against any
partner.
As showing that formerly a person
could by native law and custom be
imprisoned (panyarred) for debt
until the family came forward and
paid the debt, he quoted
Sarbah,
pages 146 and 96, and the judgment
of Sir W. Brandford Griffith, C.J.,
in the case of
Lokko v. Konkloji,
Vol. I, Part II of Renner's Gold
Coast Reports, at page
451.
We are of the opinion that where a
person sues as head of a family he
thereby renders himself personally
liable, according to native law
and custom, for any costs that may
be awarded against him. Having
come to that conclusion we
consider that the person of the
appellant was liable to attachment
by writ of Ca. Sa.
The appeal is dismissed with costs
£27 Os. 6d.
|