IN RE APPIAH (DECD.); YEBOAH vs. APPIAH [1976]DLHC393

Date	1976-01-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC393

EDWARD WIREDU J.

J. B. SHORT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

DR. A. K. FIADJOE FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1976]DLHC393
																																						<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" >IN RE APPIAH (DECD.); YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>APPIAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 223<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
14 JANUARY 1976.<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">

J. B. SHORT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

DR. A. K. FIADJOE 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>By his originating
summons issued out of this court on 25 August 1975 the plaintiff as successor
of the late J. O. Appiah of Akim Swedru calls for determination the following:<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">“By a
judgment of this honourable court dated 15 May 1975, the defendant was granted
together with her children possessory title to house No. NT 4, the matrimonial
home of the defendant and her late husband. The defendant claims that by virtue
of that judgment she is entitled to occupy the said house to the exclusion of
the family of her late husband and in particular the successor and further to
alienate portions of the house without reference to the successor or his head
of family. The plaintiff as successor claims to be entitled to occupy the rooms
formerly occupied by the deceased according to custom and to utilise usufruct
accruing therefrom for the maintenance of the defendant and her minor children,
and to utilise any surplus to liquidate the huge debts now owed. The decision
of the court is therefore sought as to the true interpretation of the
judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
summons was supported by a five-paragraphed affidavit in the following form:<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">“I,
Edward Owusu Yeboah make oath and say as follows: <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">(1) That
I am the plaintiff herein. <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">(2) That
the question raised for determination in the summons herein is ‘whether the
possessory title of the defendant herein as customary widow of the late J. O.
Appiah is subject to the rights of the family over house No. NT 5 Akim Swedru
that is to say whether the widow has exclusive right to the house.’ <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">(3) Further
whether the right to use chattels enjoyed in common with the intestate includes
the right to alienate. <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">(4) The
defendant pursuant to the ruling of 15 May 1975 is claiming exclusive
possessory title and has already sold the car belonging to the late J. O.
Appiah. <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">(5) That
in the premises I swear to this affidavit deposing to the grounds for the
application.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the summons the plaintiff was not represented and I was made to
understand that his counsel did not intend to offer any further arguments
beyond what had been filed on his behalf.<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the defendant however raised two points as preliminary objections
to the summons. Firstly, he argued that since administrators had been appointed
to administer the estate of the late Appiah, the plaintiff as his customary
successor had no locus standi to present the present summons. Secondly he argued
that the matters raised for determination in the plaintiff’s summons are not
matters that can be properly determined on originating summons. He argued that
what was being asked by the plaintiff was the legal meaning of certain parts of
the judgment of this court and this he argued were not among matters which
Orde</main>