Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:00:25.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accountability of the Head of Family in Ghana: A Statutory Solution in Search of a Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

A. K. P. Kludze
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By a decree, the Head of Family (Accountability) Law, 1985, it has now been statutorily established that, in Ghana, whatever may have been the doubts in the past on the issue, the Head of Family is accountable for any family property entrusted to him. The relevant provisions of the Law are:

Section 2 of the Law provides for an application by motion to the court for accounts by “any member of the family to which such property belongs who has or claims to have any beneficial interest in the property]. The only proviso is that such an application may not be entertained unless the court is satisfied that a settlement within the family has been attempted without success. The obvious reasons for this procedural requirement are to encourage the resolution out of court of family disputes relating to family property, and to conserve judicial resources.

Perhaps ex abundanti cautela the new legislation makes accountable not only the head of family but also any other person who has possession, control or custody of family property. It has never been doubted that a person other than a head of family who has possession, control or custody of family property is fully accountable for the property. The problem, such as there was, related to the question of accountability for family property by the head of family.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2: Essays in Honour of A. N. Allott , Spring 1987 , pp. 107 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P.N.D.C. Law 114.

2 See Daniels, W. C. Ekow, “The Extent of the Head of Family's Liability to Account”, (1976) 8 R.G.L. 70Google Scholar. The parody is on 1 Cor. 3:6.

3 Sarbah, J. M., Fanti Customary Laws, 2nd ed., 1904, p. 90Google Scholar.

4 See section 19 of the repealed Courts Ordinance, 1876Google Scholar.

5 (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 102Google Scholar. Other cases include Nelson v. Nelson (1932) 1 W.A.C.A. 215Google Scholar; Fynn v. Gardiner (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 260Google Scholar; Katai v. Katai (1956) 1 W.A.L.R. 151Google Scholar; Pappoe v. Kweku (1924) F.C. ‘23–’25, 158Google Scholar.

6 Abude v. Onano (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 102, 104Google Scholar.

7 Ibid. Emphasis supplied.

8 Daniels, W. C. Ekow, “Some Principles of the Law of Trusts in West Africa”, [1962] 6 J.A.L. 165, 173–174Google Scholar.

9 Daniels, W. C. Ekow, “The Extent of the Head of Family's Liability to Account”, (1976) 8 R.G.L. 70, 74Google Scholar.

10 Bentsi-Enchill, K., Ghana Land Law, 1964, pp. 101–102Google Scholar.

11 Crabbe, S. A. Azu, John Mensah Sarbah, 1971, p. 85Google Scholar.

12 Kludze, A. K. P., Ewe Law of Properly, 1973, p. 97Google Scholar.

13 Ollennu, N. A., Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, 1962, p. 137Google Scholar.

14 Fynn v. Gardiner (1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 260, 261Google Scholar.

15 Ollennu, N. A., Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, 2nd ed., 1985, p. 169Google Scholar.

16 See Abude v. Onano (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 102Google Scholar and Asonoware v. Ayiku IV, High Court, 27 07, 1962 (unreported)Google Scholar.

17 (1934) 2 W.A.C.A. 172, 175Google Scholar.

18 (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 78, 80Google Scholar.

19 See Kludze, A. K. P., op. cit., p. 98Google Scholar.

20 [1959] G.L.R. 67Google Scholar.

21 See Mills v. Addy (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 357Google Scholar.

22 See Woodman, G. R., “The Rationale of the Head of Family's Immunity to Actions for Accounts”, (1976) 8 R.G.L. 147, 150Google Scholar.

23 Alienation outside the family can only be validly effected by the head of family with the consent of the principal members of the family.

24 Sarbah, J. M., Fanti Customary Laws, 1904, p. 90Google Scholar.

25 Ibid.

26 See Mahmudu v. Zenua (1934) 2 W.A.C.A. 172Google Scholar and Azantilow v. Naviri (1952) D. C. (Land) ‘52–’55, 20Google Scholar. See also Sarbah, J. M., Fanti Customary Laws, 1904, p. 37Google Scholar and Ollennu, N. A., Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, 2nd ed., 1985, pp. 144–142Google Scholar. There is only the exception for cases of necessity under the rule in Kwan v. Nyieni [1959] G.L.R. 67Google Scholar.

27 See e.g. Ollennu, N. A., Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, 2nd ed., 1985, pp. 169–171Google Scholar. This is based on the passages in Sarbah, J. M., Fanti Customary Laws, 1904, pp. 38, 90Google Scholar.

28 See Kludzc, A. K. P., op. cit., pp. 99–102Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., pp. 81, 83 and Nukunya, G. K., Kinship and Marriage Among the Anlo Ewe, 1969, p. 26Google Scholar.

30 See Ollennu, N. A., Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana, 2nd ed., 1985, pp. 152–153Google Scholar. See also Lartey v. Mensah (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 410Google Scholar; Adjei v. Appiagyei (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 401Google Scholar, C.A.; Okoe v. Ankrah [1961] 1 G.L.R. 109Google Scholar.