SARPONG vs. YENTUMI & ANOR

(His lordship referred to the pleadings, and proceeded:-) The most important point which learned counsel for the defendant has made is that on the face of the writ of summons itself, and upon the whole evidence, the claim is one for succession, not one relating to ownership, possession and occupation of land. The law, as I understand it, is this: where two persons claim to be entitled to land by right of succession to one and the same person, that suit is one of succession. The real issue the Court would have to decide is which of the two contesting parties is the successor to the deceased. The declaration that the successor is entitled to possession and occupation of the land is merely consequential as a right vested in the successor, it is not an issue in the case. But where two persons claim land, one as successor to one person (e.g. his ancestor Mr. A), and the other as successor to another person (e.g. his ancestor Mr B), that claim, though based upon succession, is not a case...