The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Senyo Dzamefe JA, on the 11th day of February, 2025 ruled that Michael Amu Dodoo does not have capacity to mount a suit on behalf of the Dodoo Clottey Family of Pokuase.
The Court gave this ruling in an application for stay of execution filed by Michael Amu Dodoo, in suit NO H3/176/25 titled Michael Nii Amu Dodoo VRS Brainsfield Ltd & 3 others.
To provide some background, Michael Nii Amu Dodoo, commenced a suit at the High Court against Brainsfield Limited and 2 others seeking to prevent Brainsfield limited from continuing with its mandate to protect the Dodoo Clottey Family lands known as ACP Estates.
Michael Amu Dodoo initially claimed to be the appointed authorized representative of the Family, he later amended his designation and described himself as the head of the Family.
He has since been injuncted by the High Court from holding himself out as head of the Family and also from interfering with the capacity of Grace Darkua Dodoo as head of the Family.
In the suit, Michael Amu Dodoo applied to the High Court for an order injuncting Brainsfield from undertaking the job which the Family had mandated it to do.
The injunction application was refused and Michael Amu Dodoo appealed to the Court of Appeal
During the hearing of the application, the Court of Appeal noted that Michael Amu Dodoo did not deny the fact that Grace Darkua Dodoo is the Head of the Family.
The Court ruled further that Michael Amu Dodoo failed to establish that Grace Darkua Dodoo had failed to protect the family property.
He therefore lacked capacity to mount the action in the name of the Family. The application for stay was dismissed as being incompetent.
In a rather interesting turn of events, the Court found that although Michael Amu Dodoo is a convict who has failed to serve his prison sentence by being evasive, he has rather taken to filing applications and personally deposing to affidavits in support of various applications before the same Court whose orders he is disregarding.
The Court of Appeal strongly expressed its disdain for such conduct and nearly meted out punishment on the lawyer for Michael Amu Dodoo, Marcel Kofi Agbedzinu because it believed that, as an officer of the Court, the lawyer ought to rather advise his Client to first purge himself of the contempt before filing applications before the Court, especially when the lawyer is fully aware that his client has been convicted of contempt and a bench warrant issued for his arrest. The court advised the lawyer who was then left off the hook after he apologized profusely to the Court.
