AGYAPONG vs. PREMPEH

The dispute concerned House No. 24 Block B, Asokwa, Kumasi, following the death of Joseph Kwasi Prempeh in July 1979. The respondent, suing as successor to the deceased’s estate, claimed that the house formed part of the deceased’s estate and sought possession and related reliefs. The appellant resisted the claim on three main bases: first, that the deceased had held the property as trustee for her; second, that a paper writing left by the deceased constituted a valid customary oral will (samansiw) in her favour; and third, later in the proceedings, that she was the deceased’s spouse and entitled to benefit under the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111). The courts rejected the trust claim and had to determine whether the failed written will could be treated as a valid samansiw and whether PNDCL 111 could avail the appellant. Portion of judgment: Bamford-Addo JSC set out the claims and counterclaims beginning, “The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff filed a writ at the High Court claiming as follows…”; Francois JSC described the central issue as “whether the appellant is entitled to the disputed house… under the beneficial dispensation of samansiw.”

FRANCOIS JSC. There is only one issue of importance in this matter and that is whether the appellant is entitled to the disputed house No 24 Block B, Asokwa, Kumasi under the beneficial dispensation of samansiw. Two other matters have however been debated but they are inconsequential and may be dismissed briefly. First, is the appellant’s proprietary claim to the disputed house with the correlated request that the court treat the deceased as trustee acting in her interest whenever title was in issue. The facts belie such a claim. The trial judge made a clear and decisive finding that the vendor-owner sold the property to the deceased who purchased it in his own right. The judge was amply supported by the appellant’s own witness, and also the claim pressed by the deceased himself in exhibit C. The rejection of the appellant’s claim in the court’s conclusion, which I quote below, cannot be successfully impugned. The judge said: “I find from the totality of the evidence, that ...