GOLO III vs. DOH AND OTHERS [1966]DLHC1698

Date	1966-11-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1698

JIAGGE J.

DOKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S. OKUDJETO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1966]DLHC1698
																																						<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" >GOLO III<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>DOH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 447<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:
12 NOVEMBER 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 PLAINTIFF.<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
plaintiff as head of the Fia Komla family claimed £G80 damages for trespass and
an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further
actions of trespass: [The main issue for the determination of the court
involved the law of inheritance in the Kpeve area of the Volta Region. Her
ladyship reviewed the evidence in the case and continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff led expert evidence on the custom of inheritance and succession in
the Kpeve area. The defendants did not seriously contest the evidence on
custom.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s fifth witness was the stool father of Kpeve and had been stool
father for the past twenty years. He told the court that he was well acquainted
with the inheritance laws of Kpeve. Inheritance in his area he said was
patrilineal in relation to both real and personal properties.<o:p></o:p>Children,
sons and daughters inherit their fathers as of right but the daughters have
only a life interest in the property descending to them from their father. He
said, “On the death of a daughter her father’s property reverts to her father’s
family. A daughter cannot therefore make any absolute disposition of property
inherited from her father.”<o:p></o:p>Under
cross-examination the witness explained further that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“A
daughter who succeeds to her father’s property succeeds only for her lifetime.
A gift made by a father to his daughter during his lifetime can be disposed of
absolutely by the daughter, if the property was self-acquired by the father.
Such a gift inter vivos can always be disposed of absolutely. The self-acquired
properties of a woman belong to her children, men and women alike. These
self-acquired properties become family property in the hands of the children of
the deceased and they cannot dispose of them absolutely.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He went
on to say that on the death of a woman her family appoints one of her children
to look after all her properties for herself and all her brothers and
sisters—the properties are not shared. On the death of one of the children
leaving issues the issues will step into their mother’s place and enjoy the
portion that was to go to their mother. He said:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
grandchildren of a woman may inherit property descending from their grandmother
provided that property was self-acquired by the said grandmother ... However
any property coming into the hands of the maternal ancestor which descended to
her from the paternal line will revert to the paternal family.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If an
only child, a daughter, inherits her father’s property she has only a life
interest, on her death the property reverts to her father’s family. Her
children will not inherit such property as of right. But where a self-acquired
property descends to the daughter from her mother, the daughter’s children may
inherit. Only the issues of sons may inherit their grandfather’s property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim was that the Dzongo Nyowui land was founded by the Fia Komla
family and came through Tefe to his daughter Adjoa Wole who according to custom
had only a life int</main>