NARTEY vs. NARTEY AND ANOTHER [1962]DLHC1602

Date	1962-03-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1602

OLLENNU J.

G. KORANTENG-ADDOW FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

K. OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLHC1602
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NARTEY<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NARTEY AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 184<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 20TH MARCH 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

G.
KORANTENG-ADDOW FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K.
OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 6.0pt 0in">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>[His lordship narrated the facts as set out in the headnote and
continued:] The local magistrate seemed to have some misgivings about the
appointment of a woman, the defendant, to succeed to a deceased male, and also
to take charge of family property when there are male members of the family; he
therefore ordered that the defendant alone should not administer the estate,
and appointed Joseph Akrong Nartey, P.W.3, brother of the deceased jointly with
his sister, the defendant, as administrators of the estate real and personal,
and directed them to distribute the properties subject-matter of the suit in a
particular manner.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The evidence in support of each of the findings of fact made by
the local magistrate is overwhelming, even upon the evidence led on behalf of
the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff and his brothers and sisters have no inherent right
which entitles them to succeed to their father as of right even if their father
left estate; succession is a matter of election or appointment by the family
who by customary law inherit; and although the family often appoint a male
person to succeed a male deceased and a female to succeed a female deceased,
there is no rule of customary law that a male must always be appointed to
succeed a male. The family are entitled to appoint any person male or female,
who in their opinion is the most suitable person to succeed. The decision of
the family in this case is that although the deceased was survived by a
brother, P.W.3, the defendant, a woman, should succeed to her deceased brother
who in fact left no individual estate. The family are within their rights by
custom to make that decision. In fact the evidence proved the family to be
right in their decision, because although the deceased left no estate, his
successor, his sister, discharged the duties of that office faithfully, and
looked after the plaintiff and other children of the deceased with the same
sense of moral obligation as she would look after her own children, apprenticed
the plaintiff with a master motor mechanic to learn a trade and paid the
necessary apprenticeship fees, and sent some of the other children to school.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again there is overwhelming evidence that it was the co-defendant
together with her children, male and female, who entrusted the properties,
subject-matter of the suit, to the care and management of the defendant. This,
again, they are entitled to do, as owners of those properties, and no court has
the right to question their said appointment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It appears from his order that the magistrate thought that because
Prampram is a patrilineal family society, the children of the defendant, a
woman, are not entitled to any interest in the property in dispute for he said:
“Here I rule that the defendant alone should not manage the estate because her
sons must inherit their father.” In this the local magistrate erred grievously.
Firstly, because he has no jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of the
family property; secondly there was no claim before him for such an
appointment, and thirdly, there is the unambiguous finding of the local court
that the property is property of a woman the co-defendant, and her children
male and female. He said: “That all the children of the co-defendant worked
together for the acquisition of the properties in question, consequently they
are common to all co-defendant’s children”. If Prampram had been a matrilineal
family system area, all the children, male and female, would belong to one
family, the maternal family, for purpose of owning property, and so whatever
property they acquired by their joint effort would descend strictly in the
matrilineal line.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since in this case the co-defendant and her children belong to two
distinct families for purposes of property owning, and since each of them has
as much interest in the prop</main>