Law Author

Abadoo v Awotwi [1973] 1 GLR 393; affirmed sub. nom. Awoti v Abadoo [1977] 2 GLR 375 CA

The case of Abadoo v Awotwi [1973] 1 GLR 393; affirmed sub. nom. Awoti v Abadoo [1977] 2 GLR 375 CA is a Ghanaian case that deals with the essential requirements of a valid customary law will. A customary law will, also known as samansiw, is a will made according to the customs and traditions of a particular ethnic group in Ghana.

The plaintiff in this case was the widow of the deceased, who died intestate. She claimed that the defendant, who was the brother of the deceased, had no right to administer the estate of the deceased, because the deceased had made a valid customary law will in her favour. She alleged that the deceased had declared his intention to make her his sole beneficiary in the presence of two witnesses, and had handed over some personal effects to her as a symbol of his will.

The defendant denied that the deceased had made any such will, and argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit anything from the estate, because she was not a customary wife of the deceased, but only a concubine. He also contended that even if the deceased had made a will, it was not valid, because it did not comply with the essential requirements of a customary law will.

The trial judge held that the plaintiff was a customary wife of the deceased, and that the deceased had made a valid customary law will in her favour. He granted her a declaration that she was entitled to administer the estate of the deceased as his sole beneficiary. He also awarded her damages for trespass and injunction against the defendant.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal held that the essential requirements of a valid customary law will were: (1) an intention to make a will; (2) a declaration of that intention in the presence of two or more witnesses; and (3) a delivery of some property or symbol to the beneficiary or his or her representative.

The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that there was no intention to make a will, because the deceased had not used words such as “I give” or “I bequeath”. The court held that such words were not necessary, as long as the intention was clear from the circumstances. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that there was no delivery of property or symbol, because the personal effects handed over by the deceased were not part of his estate. The court held that any property or symbol that signified the testator’s intention was sufficient, and that it did not matter whether it was part of his estate or not.

The relevance of this case is that it established the legal principles governing the validity of customary law wills in Ghana. It also affirmed the role of the courts in interpreting and applying customary laws in accordance with modern social conditions. It also recognized the rights of women to inherit property under customary law, and protected them from being deprived by male relatives.

(1) ABADOO vs. AWOTWI [1973]DLHC2342 – dennislawgh.com
(2) (PDF) Essential Requirements of a Valid Customary Law Wills; An …. https://www.academia.edu/36539168/Essential_Requirements_of_a_Valid_Customary_Law_Wills_An_Appraisal_Isaac_Aburam_Lartey.
(3) The comprehensive database of African case law and legislation | judy.legal. https://www.judy.legal/case/abadoo-v-awotwi-0050e.

Aboaku v Tetteh, S.C.

The case Aboaku v Tetteh, S.C. was an appeal from a judgment of Ollennu, J., who dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for damages caused by a car accident involving the defendants¹.
The plaintiff claimed that his car was stationary on the left-hand side of the road when the first defendant, who was driving the second defendant’s car, negligently collided with the rear of his car¹.
The defendants did not appear in court or file any defence, and the trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the ground that he failed to prove negligence on the part of the first defendant¹.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the trial judge’s decision and held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligence against the first defendant, and that the burden of proof shifted to the defendants to rebut it¹.
The Supreme Court also held that the trial judge erred in relying on a police report that was not tendered in evidence, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the cost of repairs and loss of earnings¹.
The relevance of the case is that it illustrates the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) in tort law, which means that negligence can be inferred from the circumstances of an accident without direct evidence².
The case also shows the importance of filing a defence and appearing in court to challenge a claim, as well as the role of evidence and burden of proof in civil litigation².

(1) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE …. https://media.ghalii.org/files/judgments/ghasc/2011/20/2011-ghasc-20.pdf.
(2) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE …. https://media.ghalii.org/files/judgments/ghasc/2011/20/2011-ghasc-20.pdf.
(3) The comprehensive database of African case law and legislation | judy.legal. https://www.judy.legal/case/aboaku-v-tetteh-another-d4328.

Acheampong v Acheampong [1967] GLR 34

The case of Acheampong v Acheampong [1967] GLR 34 was a civil suit filed by a woman who was married to a man under customary law, and later discovered that he had married another woman under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.). She claimed damages for breach of promise to marry under the Ordinance, and also sought a declaration that the second marriage was null and void. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that such an action could not be maintained by a spouse to a customary marriage, while that marriage subsists.

The High Court, presided by Amissah J., overruled the objection and held that a spouse to a customary marriage could sue the other spouse for breach of promise to marry under the Ordinance, as long as the customary marriage was not validly dissolved. The court also held that the second marriage under the Ordinance was invalid, as it contravened section 35 of the Ordinance, which prohibits bigamy.

The relevance of this case is that it established the principle that a customary marriage is not inferior to a statutory marriage, and that both types of marriages are equally recognized and protected by the law. It also affirmed the right of a spouse to a customary marriage to seek redress for any injury caused by the other spouse’s breach of promise to marry under the Ordinance.

(1) Acheampongvs – case of acheampong v acheampong – ACHEAMPONG … – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/legal-writing/acheampongvs-case-of-acheampong-v-acheampong/49569563.
(2) ACHEAMPONG V. ACHEAMPONG | HIGH COURT | GHANA | 30 JAN 1967 | (1967 …. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/acheampong-v-acheampong-28693.
(3) Acheampong Vrs Yaa (Subsituted for Araba Adawoma) and Others … – GHALII. https://old.ghalii.org/gh/judgment/supreme-court/2020/34.

ASLEF v United Kingdom (2007) TLR, 9 March

The case ASLEF v United Kingdom ¹ was a landmark case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that upheld the right of ASLEF, a British trade union, to be able to choose its members. ASLEF is a trade union that represents mainly train drivers and advocates for a socialist society and equality of treatment regardless of race, religion, or other factors. In 2002, ASLEF expelled one of its members, Jay Lee, who was also a member and candidate of the British National Party (BNP), a political party that promotes white nationalism and opposes immigration and multiculturalism. Lee challenged his expulsion under section 174 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), which prohibits unions from excluding or expelling persons on the ground that they are or were a member of a political party. He was successful in his claim before the Employment Tribunal, which found that he had been expelled primarily because of his membership of the BNP. ASLEF appealed to the ECtHR, arguing that its freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been violated by the UK law.

The ECtHR agreed with ASLEF and held that UK law was in breach of Article 11 of the ECHR. The court recognized that trade unions have the right to protect their identity, values, and objectives by excluding individuals whose views and conduct are incompatible with those of the union. The court also noted that Lee’s expulsion did not cause him any identifiable hardship or prevent him from exercising his own freedom of expression or association. The court concluded that the interference with ASLEF’s right to choose its members was not necessary in a democratic society and that there was no reasonable or proportionate justification for it.

The relevance of the case is that it established an important precedent for the autonomy and self-regulation of trade unions in Europe. It affirmed that trade unions have the right to expel members who do not share their core values and principles, as long as they do not abuse this right or infringe on the rights of others. It also showed that UK law was not compatible with the ECHR in this respect and that it needed to be amended or interpreted differently to respect the freedom of association of trade unions. The case also highlighted the tension between different human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, and how they should be balanced in different contexts.

(1) ENGINEERS & FIREMEN (ASLEF) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM CASE OF ASSOCIATED …. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-79604&filename=001-79604.pdf&TID=ugdtvrvpft.
(2) Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v United Kingdom …. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Society_of_Locomotive_Engineers_and_Firemen_v_United_Kingdom.
(3) Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) v The …. https://swarb.co.uk/associated-society-of-locomotive-engineers-and-firemen-aslef-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-27-feb-2007/.
(4) IER ASLEF Briefing by United Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Trade Union …. https://issuu.com/rachely/docs/ieraslefbrief.
(5) ASLEF v UK [2007] IRLR 361 Case Summary – Oxbridge Notes. https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/aslef-v-uk.

Ackaah v Asane [1973] 2 GLR 429

– The case was an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Sekondi, which dismissed a suit for a declaration of title to a piece of land in Sefwi district¹.

– The appellant, Ackaah, was a cocoa farmer who claimed that he had purchased the land from the respondent, Asane, in 1962. He alleged that the respondent had breached the contract of sale by failing to deliver the land to him and by selling part of it to a third party. He sought a declaration of title and damages for breach of contract¹².

– The respondent denied the appellant’s claim and contended that he had not sold the land to the appellant, but only granted him a lease for 99 years. He also argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was brought more than six years after the cause of action arose¹².

– The High Court, per Edusei J., dismissed the appellant’s suit and upheld the respondent’s defence. The court held that the contract of sale was not valid, as it was not evidenced by any writing or payment of any consideration. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was governed by the common law and not by customary law¹².

– The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The court held that there was no error in law or fact in the judgment of the High Court and that it was conclusive on the issue of title and limitation. The court also held that the appellant had failed to prove his alleged purchase or possession of the land¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of sale of land, especially in relation to the requirements of writing and consideration. It also illustrates how the courts apply the doctrine of limitation of actions and its effect on title to land³.

(1) Ackaah v. Asane – A major case worth analyzing under the Sale … – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/commercial-law/ackaah-v-asane-a-major-case-worth-analyzing-under-the-sale-of-goods-topic/40198956.

(2) ACKAAH V. ASANE | HIGH COURT | GHANA | 4 JUL 1973 | (1973) JELR 66850 …. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/ackaah-v-asane-16d1d.

(3) The comprehensive database of African case law and legislation | judy.legal. https://www.judy.legal/case/ackaah-v-asane-16d1d.

AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32; [2009] HRLR 27; [2009] 1 WLR 1385

The case AS (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32; [2009] HRLR 27; [2009] 1 WLR 1385¹ was a decision of the House of Lords on the interpretation of section 85 (5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”). The appellants were two young Somalis who applied for entry clearance to join their cousin, Ms Omar, who was a recognised refugee in the UK. Their application was refused by the Secretary of State on the ground that they did not meet the requirements of the immigration rules at the date of decision. The appellants appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), which had the power to consider not only the immigration rules but also any other matter raised by the appellants, such as their human rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, section 85 (5) of the 2002 Act provided that the AIT could only take into account evidence that was in existence at the date of decision, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

The appellants argued that section 85 (5) was incompatible with article 8, as it prevented them from relying on evidence of their situation in Ethiopia after the date of decision, which had deteriorated significantly. They also argued that section 85 (5) could be read down in accordance with section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow the AIT to consider any relevant evidence, regardless of when it came into existence.

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal and held that section 85 (5) should be read down to permit the AIT to take into account any evidence that was relevant to the appeal, whether or not it was in existence at the date of decision. The House rejected the argument that section 85 (5) was clear and unyielding, and found that it was possible to give it a meaning that was compatible with article 8. The House also rejected the argument that reading down section 85 (5) would undermine the immigration rules or create uncertainty or inconsistency in their application.

The relevance of this case is that it established an important principle of statutory interpretation in relation to human rights. It showed that where a statute is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning, it should be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the ECHR, unless there is a clear intention of Parliament to the contrary. It also showed that the courts have a duty to give effect to human rights in immigration cases, even if this means departing from the strict application of the immigration rules.

¹: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090617/assom.htm
(1) House of Lords – AS (Somalia) (FC) and another (Appellants) v Secretary …. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090617/assom.htm.
(2) R (on the application of ZO (Somalia) and others) (Respondents) v …. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0151-judgment.pdf.
(3) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department.

Acheampong v Asare [1976] 1 GLR 287

– The case was an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Kumasi, which dismissed a suit for a declaration of title to a piece of land in Kumasi¹.

– The appellant, Acheampong, was the son of one Kwaku Acheampong, who died in 1938 leaving a will. The will devised a house and a land (known as the Adum land) to his wife, his children and his grandchildren. The will also stated that the house and the land were never to be sold¹².

– The appellant claimed that he inherited the Adum land from his father, who had acquired it by purchase from one Asare in 1928. He alleged that the respondent, Asare, had trespassed on the land and sold part of it to a third party. He sought a declaration of title and an injunction against the respondent¹².

– The respondent denied the appellant’s claim and contended that he was the owner of the land by virtue of a previous judgment of the High Court in 1930, which held that he had not sold the land to Kwaku Acheampong, but only granted him a lease for 99 years. He also argued that the appellant was estopped by the 1930 judgment from asserting any title to the land¹².

– The High Court, per Annan J., dismissed the appellant’s suit and upheld the respondent’s defence. The court held that the 1930 judgment was binding on the parties and that the appellant had no title to the land. The court also held that the appellant had failed to prove his alleged inheritance from his father or any possession of the land¹².

– The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The court held that there was no error in law or fact in the 1930 judgment and that it was conclusive on the issue of title. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the appellant’s claim of inheritance or possession¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of estoppel by judgment and res judicata in civil cases, especially in relation to land disputes. It also illustrates how the courts apply the doctrine of interpretation of wills and its effect on title to land³.

(1) Acheampong V. Overseas Breweries Ltd – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/law/acheampong-v-overseas-breweries-ltd/34092317.

(2) Acheampongvs – case of acheampong v acheampong – ACHEAMPONG … – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/ghana-institute-of-management-and-public-administration/legal-writing/acheampongvs-case-of-acheampong-v-acheampong/49569563.

(3) The Functions of the Law of Torts in Africa | Journal of African Law …. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/abs/functions-of-the-law-of-torts-in-africa/E5B0B77F821AE9DA229BAAD34DC18D63.

(4) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA – GHALII. https://media.ghalii.org/files/judgments/ghasc/2022/6/2022-ghasc-6.pdf.

ADT v United Kingdom [2000] 2 FLR 697; (2001) 31 EHCR 33

The case ADT v United Kingdom¹ was a complaint brought by a British citizen, A D T, who was convicted of gross indecency for engaging in consensual homosexual acts with more than two other men in private. He claimed that the UK law that prohibited such acts violated his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) agreed with him and found that there was a violation of Article 8. The Court held that the law was not necessary in a democratic society to protect morals or the rights and freedoms of others, as required by Article 8(2). The Court noted that the law was discriminatory and arbitrary, as it did not apply to heterosexual or lesbian groups, and that it had a chilling effect on the development of personal relationships and identity of homosexual men.

The relevance of the case is that it was one of the first cases to challenge the criminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults in private in the UK. It contributed to the recognition and protection of the human rights of sexual minorities in Europe. It also influenced the subsequent repeal of the law in question by the Sexual Offences Act 2003², which decriminalized all consensual sexual activity between adults over 16, regardless of gender or number.

¹: ADT v United Kingdom
²: Sexual Offences Act 2003

(1) Oxford Public International Law: ADT v United Kingdom, Judgment, Merits …. https://opil.ouplaw.com/abstract/10.1093/law:ihrl/2606echr00.case.1/law-ihrl-2606echr00.
(2) BAILII – BAILII OpenLaw – Human Rights (ECHR). https://www.bailii.org/openlaw/human_rights_echr.html.
(3) Oxford Public International Law: ADT v United Kingdom, Judgment, Merits …. https://opil.ouplaw.com/abstract/10.1093/law:ihrl/2606echr00.case.1/law-ihrl-2606echr00.
(4) ADT v United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Aug 2000 – swarb.co.uk. https://swarb.co.uk/adt-v-united-kingdom-ECHR-4-Aug-2000/.
(5) Online Law Learning Platform – Simple Studying. https://simplestudying.com/adt-v-united-kingdom-3576597-2000-cly-3251.

Abu Grunshie v The State [1966] GLR 572, SC

– The case was an appeal from a conviction for stealing, which was an offence under section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29)¹.

– The appellants, Abu Grunshie and another, were accused of stealing a bicycle belonging to one Nimoh. They were identified by Nimoh and a witness at the scene of the crime and at an identification parade. They denied the charge and claimed that they had bought the bicycle from a third party¹².

– The trial judge, per Amissah J., found them guilty and sentenced them to three years’ imprisonment each. The judge relied on the evidence of identification and rejected the defence of the appellants. The judge also considered the previous convictions of the appellants, which were more than two each, and ordered their committal to the High Court for further sentence under the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963 (Act 192)¹².

– The appellants appealed to the High Court, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the committal order was invalid. They also challenged the admissibility of some evidence presented by the prosecution¹².

– The High Court, per Osei-Hwere J., dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge against the appellants and that the trial judge had acted fairly and properly in his proceedings. The court also held that the committal order was valid, as the prosecution had proved that the appellants were habitual criminals within the meaning of Act 192¹².

– The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The court held that there was no error in law or fact in the judgment of the High Court and that it was conclusive on the issue of guilt and sentence. The court also held that the committal order was automatic, as soon as the prosecution proved that the appellants had at least two previous convictions¹².

– The relevance of the case is that it shows how the legal system in Ghana deals with the issue of habitual criminals, who are subject to harsher penalties under Act 192. It also illustrates how the courts evaluate and weigh identification evidence and defence in criminal cases.

(1) THE State V. AYI Grunshie – Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/university-of-ghana/criminal-law-2/the-state-v-ayi-grunshie/50803947.

(2) ABU GRUNSHIE AND ANOTHER V. THE STATE | SUPREME COURT | GHANA | 20 JUN …. https://lite.judy.legal/amp/case/abu-grunshie-another-v-state-89cd8.

A v United Kingdom [2009] All ER (D) 203 (Feb)

The applicants were 11 foreign nationals who were detained in the United Kingdom under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which allowed the indefinite detention of non-nationals who could not be deported for fear of torture or ill-treatment in their home countries. The UK government had derogated from Article 5 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to liberty and security, on the grounds of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

The applicants challenged their detention before the UK courts and the ECHR, claiming that it violated their rights under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the ECHR. They argued that their detention was arbitrary, discriminatory, disproportionate and based on insufficient evidence.

The ECHR ruled unanimously that the applicants’ detention did not fall within the exception to the right to liberty set out in Article 5 (1) (f) as it was not possible to deport them. The court also found that there was a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5, as the detention scheme discriminated against non-nationals and was not justified by any objective and reasonable criteria. The court further held that there was a violation of Article 5 (4) in respect of four applicants who were not given sufficient information about the allegations against them to effectively challenge their detention. The court did not find a violation of Articles 3, 6 or 8.

The relevance of the case is that it established important principles and standards for the protection of human rights in the context of counter-terrorism measures. The case affirmed that the right to liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be derogated from except in very exceptional circumstances and subject to strict scrutiny. The case also emphasized that any derogation from the ECHR must be proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory. The case also clarified the procedural safeguards that are required for a fair hearing under Article 5 (4), especially when dealing with sensitive national security information.

¹: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] – 3455/05 – Council of Europe

(1) PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES – SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3789181_code2983901.pdf?abstractid=3789181&mirid=1.
(2) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] – 3455/05 – Council of Europe. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-1647&filename=002-1647.pdf&TID=ihgdqbxnfi.
(3) A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009. https://swarb.co.uk/a-and-others-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-19-feb-2009/.
(4) A. and Others v. the United Kingdom – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._and_Others_v._the_United_Kingdom.
(5) CASE OF A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – Council of Europe. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-91403&filename=001-91403.pdf&TID=tethzzkusm.