AKROFI vs. AKROFI [1965]DLHC1769

Date	1965-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1769

SOWAH J.

OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1965]DLHC1769
																																						<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" >AKROFI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AKROFI <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 13<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:
28 JANUARY 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">

OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
summons in this action was instituted in the Jasikan Local Court, but by an
order of this court the suit was transferred for hearing and determination
here.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The main
claim of the plaintiff is for “succession to and recovery from the defendant of
all the personal properties of her said deceased father.” It turned out that by
personal properties she meant all the self or individually acquired properties
of her father. The plaintiff says that her father hailed from the Buem state
and that succession to property in that state is patrilineal. Her father, Paul
Kwasi Akrofi, died on 1 May 1959 and at the date of his death he was in
possession of and the owner of three farms, one cement or block building and a
house built of swish.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On his
death one Bonifacious Kwaku was appointed the supervisor of her father’s
funeral. The duties of the supervisor were to be in charge of the funeral and
the funeral obsequies, to collect donations and to pay any funeral debts that
might arise. Bonifacious Kwaku was a cousin to the defendant and an uncle to
the plaintiff. After settling the debts it was the duty of the supervisor to
hand over to her the real properties of her father. The personal properties
were distributed among members of her family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff says that the defendant who is a younger brother of her father and
the only male member of the immediate family prevented Bonifacious from
performing his duties and took over the duties from Bonifacious. She stated
further that the defendant has taken possession of her father’s properties but
is not maintaining her or her mother and is not accounting to anyone.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s aunt Margaret gave evidence in her favour. She stated that since
the death of her brother the defendant had unlawfully assumed dominion of the
plaintiff’s father’s properties and was preventing the plaintiff from entering
into her rightful inheritance. She stated further that the defendant even
refused to pay the debts of her brother which he owed to the Cocoa Purchasing
Corporation and she had to pay a portion of the debt. Thereafter she instituted
an action against the defendant but the action was settled out of court by the
chief of Jasikan. She said that the plaintiff being the only child of her
father was entitled to succeed to her father’s estate. The plaintiff further
called evidence to show that a woman in the absence of a male could succeed to
her father’s properties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In answer
to the plaintiff’s case the defendant did not deny that the plaintiff’s
father’s estate consisted of three farms and two houses as alleged but stated
that in the Buem area women do not succeed to their fathers’ estates. He
admitted that if the plaintiff were a man there would have been no question of
his not succeeding to the father’s estate but the plaintiff being a woman, he
had been appointed by the family to succeed. He said the persons who appointed
him were the head of the clan, the chief of Jasikan and a few of his elders.
The head of the clan gave evidence in his support and maintained that he was
one of the persons who appointed him. The defendant also called the paramount
chief of the Buem state to give evidence as to custom.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me proper to examine the evidence as to custom. It is agreed by all that
succession is patrilineal in the Buem state and the plaintiff admits that
wherever the children are of mixed se</main>