ATTA YAW AND OTHERS vs. AWUAH [1964]DLSC1870

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1870

SARKODEE-ADDO C.J.

OLLENNU JSC

BLAY J.S.C.

VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE APPELLANTS.

D. S. EFFA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1870
																																						<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" >ATTA YAW AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AWUAH <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 128<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

D. S. EFFA FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

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

SARKODEE-ADDO C.J., OLLENNU AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu J.S.C.
delivered the judgment of the court. The plaintiff, respondent in this appeal,
is successor to one Kwame Num, late of Bomaa, and the defendants, the
appellants, are children of the said Kwame Num who died on or about 28
September 1960. The farm the subject-matter of the suit, called Kradwete farm,
is one of five farms of which the said Kwame Num died possessed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
the plaintiff’s case that when cultivating the said Kradwete farm, the late
Kwame Num declared that he was making it for his family, and that in pursuance
of the intention so expressed by him, members of his family assisted the said
Kwame Num with finance and labour to make the farm, and therefore the farm
acquired the character of family property even during Kwame Num’s lifetime. It was
his case further, that in any event Num having died intestate possessed of it,
the farm, by customary law, became vested in the family as family property and
came under his management as Num’s successor lawfully appointed by the family,
and consequently on entering upon his office of successor to Num, he took
possession of the farm together with Num’s other four farms, and he was in such
possession when the defendants acting by the first defendant laid claim to it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
of the defendants is that their late father Num, made a gift of the said farm
to them, the gift being of the nature of samansiw, nuncupative will, reduced
into writing, which took effect upon his death. The defendants therefore
counterclaimed from the plaintiff, an account of the proceeds of the said
Kradwete farm realised by the plaintiff since the date of Num’s death.<o:p></o:p>The trial
proceeded upon the following issues agreed upon by the parties: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether the farm in dispute at Kradwete is the family
property of the plaintiff or the self-acquired property of the late Kwame Num, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether the late Kwame Num made a valid gift of the farm
indispute to the defendants, and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether the defendants are entitled to their counterclaim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
decision of the high court may be summarised as follows: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 3</main>