OLLENNU J.: On the question of the headship of the family, the evidence given by the plaintiff and by his second witness (one Comfort Korkoi Otto) that he is the head of the family was contradicted y his 4th witness. The latter said that the plaintiff is the head of the family, but he also said later in his evidence-in-chief that he and the plaintiff were appointed by the family only to collect rents from the family property. The plaintiff was also contradicted by his 7th witness, an old man, one Emmanuel Henry Amoo, who deposed in-chief that he is the present head of the family, but has appointed the plaintiff to look after the family property.
Upon that evidence the plaintiff failed to satisfy me that he is the present head of his family. I am, however, satisfied upon the evidence that the plaintiff has the authority of the family to take care of the family property, from which may be implied authority of the family to litigate the family’s title to the property.
Therefore, upon the a…