AMISSAH-ABADOO vs. DANIELS AND OTHERS [1979]DLHC1126

Date	1979-01-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1126

OSEI-HWERE J.

J. B. SHORT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E. M. AMPONSA-DADZIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1126
																																						<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" >AMISSAH-ABADOO <o:p></o:p>

vs. <o:p></o:p>

[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>

[1979] GLR 509<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
12 JANUARY 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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

E. M. AMPONSA-DADZIE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

By the
endorsement on his writ the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for,
“possession of house No. G. 8/2, Tantri Lane, Cape Coast, property of the
plaintiff and his family which the defendants have taken possession of against
the interest of the plaintiff.” The statement of claim subsequently filed by
the plaintiff ran:<o:p></o:p>

(3) An
action instituted by the plaintiff to enforce his right to apportion
accommodation in the house as against the widow and members of the plaintiff’s
family needing accommodation abated with the death of the widow. <o:p></o:p>

(4) The
plaintiff had reason to believe that after the final funeral rites of the widow
the fourth defendant would surrender the keys of the house to the plaintiff who
would then have allocated accommodation to the fourth defendant if he intended
to remain in the house instead of living in the house given to his late mother
by his late father, who knew the position of the house in dispute. <o:p></o:p>

(6) On
the day when a thanksgiving service was held for his late mother, the fourth
defendant outrageously and in a frantic manner expelled the plaintiff’s niece
from the house and threatened to assault her if she did not leave. <o:p></o:p>

(7) On
the same day, the defendants behaved in a riotous manner in the house to the
annoyance of neighbours; they have also expressed an avowed aim of destroying
the house, which in any case is in need of interior as well as exterior
repairs, urgently: rates are outstanding. <o:p></o:p>

The
defendants in their turn filed the following defence:<o:p></o:p>

“(1) Save
that the fourth defendant admits that in November 1973 judgment was given in
respect of the said property, he says that the interpretation put on it by the
plaintiff is wide off the mark.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;(2) The fourth defendant denies that he is
packing the house with members of his family. He says further that there is no
law which forbids a nephew to invite his aunt to live with him. <o:p></o:p>