KPAKPLA vs. KOFIKPOE [1965]DLHC1706

Date	1965-05-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1706

JIAGGE J.

DOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1965]DLHC1706
																																						<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" >KPAKPLA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>KOFIKPOE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 442<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:
7 MAY 1965.<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">

DOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs’ claim is for a declaration of title to land, recovery of
possession, and perpetual injunction. The action was taken against seven
defendants. In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred that they were
sisters and that their mother Susanah Akosua Kodzo who died in 1963 purchased
the land in dispute and made Togbe Deble, the first defendant, her caretaker of
Lave, the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
fourth defendant filed a defence stating that the owner of the property in
dispute was the late Susanah Akosua Kodzo and he the fourth defendant was
neither her successor nor could he inherit the property and that he laid no
claim to the said property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs later withdrew their claim against the first six defendants leaving
the seventh defendant, Felix Kofikpoe, as the only defendant. The defendant,
Felix Kofikpoe, in his statement of defence averred that he was a nephew to the
plaintiffs and that his mother was the plaintiffs’ eldest sister. The defendant
averred that the land in dispute was called Kalanu land and that it was a gift
made to his mother, the late Malewota Kumafe Kpakpla, by Susanah Akosua Kodzo.
He averred that the late Susanah gave other landed properties to the
plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
common ground that exhibit A was the plan of the land in dispute and that the
original owner of it was Susanah Akosua Kodzo who purchased it.<o:p></o:p>Asuwosi
Kpakpla, the first plaintiff, told the court that her mother Susanah Akosua
Kodzo died some three years ago and that her successor was Agbeve whom she
described as her “mother’s father” and according to custom her successor.
Later, under cross-examination she explained that Agbeve was her mother’s
father’s successor and that he played the part of “father” at the funeral of
her mother and that according to the Dodome-Tsikor custom her mother’s
successor was her mother’s father failing that, his successor. Agbeve being the
successor of her mother’s father succeeded her mother.<o:p></o:p>She told
the court that six months after her mother’s death, Agbeve gave her and her
sister Irene, their mother’s properties to inherit. She stated that the handing
over was done in the presence of other elders of the family who were Togbe
Deble (her mother’s caretaker and nephew) and one Nakpee. Other members of
family present were Alla Ogu, Irene Kpakpla, the second plaintiff, Yawo Kodzo,
Akotonukui, Kofikpoe—the defendant, his sister Afua, Etuwosi and Yawa—all these
members of the family were present when her mother’s properties were handed
over to her and her sister Irene by Agbeve her mother’s successor. Agbeve gave
evidence as the plaintiffs’ sixth witness and confirmed the allegation. The
first plaintiff told the court that in her area children inherited their
mother’s self-acquired property. On the death of the children, however, the
property reverted to the family of their mother’s father and did not descend to
the grandchildren. The line of defence adopted in cross-examination was that of
lawful inheritance although this was not pleaded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
plaintiff confirmed under cross-examination that children were entitled to
inherit their mother’s self-acquired property jointly and that on the death of
the brothers and sisters the surviving child took the entire property. On the
death of the surviving child the property reverted to the mother’s family, that
is the mother’s father’s family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>