HAYFORD vs. MOSES [1979]DLHC1067

Date	1979-11-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1067

SARKODEE J.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

SEKYI-HUGHES FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1979]DLHC1067
																																						<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" >HAYFORD <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MOSES<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 757<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:
8 NOVEMBER 1979<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

SEKYI-HUGHES 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is the customary successor and the defendant, one of two widows of
the late John Arthur who died intestate on 25 November 1971, possessed of a
block of six flats, House No. 120A, West Block, Takoradi, which was his
self-acquired property. After the death of her husband the defendant continued
to reside and still resides in one of the flats in which she, her husband and
children lived immediately before his death. Also she collected rents from
tenants who occupied other flats in the building. On 13 March 1973 the
plaintiff alone was granted letters of administration to the estate of the
deceased. Armed with this and aided by other members of the deceased’s family,
he demanded all keys to the flats including the one occupied by the defendant.
He also asked her to account for the rents she had collected. The defendant
surrendered the keys to all the flats except the one she occupied but refused
to render accounts. The plaintiff was not satisfied and in effect was
determined to throw the defendant and her children out of the flat in which she
and her husband had lived for many years. In April 1973 the plaintiff
instituted this action claiming:<o:p></o:p>“(a) an
order for the return of all keys to House No. 120A, West Block, Takoradi, to
the plaintiff which said keys are with the defendant and which the defendant
has refused to hand over despite repeated demands; and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) an order for accounts in respect of all
moneys belonging to the estate which have come to the defendant since the death
of late John Arthur and payment of same to the plaintiff who is the successor
and administrator of the estate of the late John Arthur.”<o:p></o:p>Whilst
this suit was pending, the defendant, in view of the harassment she and her
children were suffering from the hands of the plaintiff and her husband’s
family, and in particular fearing that the children who were then minors would
not be maintained by her husband’s successor, applied for and was granted
letters of administration jointly with the plaintiff. Accordingly, she
continued to collect rents out of which she maintained herself and her
children. That was the situation until the court appointed a receiver and
manager to the estate of John Arthur in July 1974.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant says that the keys she holds are those to her flat. She explained
that it was when the plaintiff refused to pay the school fees of her children
and the out-goings such as electricity and water bills and rates in respect of
the house that she in her capacity as one of the administrators acted and
carried out those important duties. She says further that since November 1976
her children by the deceased have not been provided with maintenance. She,
therefore, in her counterclaim asked the plaintiff as an administrator of her
husband’s estate to render accounts and for an order that the plaintiff out of
the estate provides reasonable maintenance for the children.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
plaintiff applied to the court for the grant of letters of administration, the
defendant entered a caveat and subsequently made serious allegations set out in
the ruling of Charles Crabbe J. (as he then was) delivered on 10 April 1974. As
the parties could not reach agreement the court ordered the applicant to take
out summons within two weeks. When that was done pleadings were ordered and
issues agreed upon and the case was set down for trial. After various
adjournments, the parties announced a settlement the terms of which were:<o:p></o:p>“(1) That
letters of administration be granted to the plaintiff herein called Isaac
Augustus Hayford. <o:p></o:p>(2) That
the defendant shall be granted ¢50 a month from the estate for her maintenance.
<o:p></o:p>