BOATENG vs. GYAMFUAA [1980]DLHC2102

Date	1980-11-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2102

APATU-PLANGE J.

ADDO-AIKINS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

CAPTAIN DARTEH FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1980]DLHC2102
																																						<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" >BOATENG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GYAMFUAA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 547<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:
11 NOVEMBER
1980<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">

ADDO-AIKINS FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

CAPTAIN DARTEH 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">

APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLUNGE J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case the plaintiff is claiming against the defendant ownership and recovery of
possession of the personal effects of one late Private Hayford Boateng and
general damages for trespass to these personal effects.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant resisted the claim by contending that as the lawful wife of the Late
Private Hayford Boateng and according to the existing law governing the
disposal of service estate of servicemen who died intestate in Ghana, she is
the person entitled to the ownership of the personal effects of her late
husband.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This case
appears to fall within a very narrow compass and involves the construction and
applicability of section 5 of the Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1964
(Act 234). The facts which are wholly agreed are these: The plaintiff is the
customary successor and administrator of the estate of one Private Hayford
Boateng formerly of the 2BN, Takoradi and who died intestate in February 1977.
At the time of his death the said late Private Boateng was a serviceman. The
defendant was the wife of the said late Private Hayford Boateng with whom she
had two issues, all minors.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
death of the said Private Hayford Boateng, the Army authorities checked his
personal effects, took them over and later handed them over to the defendant in
accordance with the Army regulations. The plaintiff on the other hand contended
that she in her capacity as customary successor and administrator of the
intestate estate of her deceased brother Private Hayford Boateng, is the one
entitled to the ownership and possession of the said personal effects.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff, however, later amended her claim as regards her capacity by
substituting the following: “Ownership and recovery of possession of the late
Private Hayford Boateng’s service estate in her capacity as a nominee and in
her capacity as a representative of the other family nominee of the late
Private Hayford Boateng of 2BN, Takoradi.” The plaintiff therefore commenced
this present action for a determination as to whether she or the defendant is
the proper person to be entitled to the service estate of the late Private
Hayford Boateng.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the
evidence of the plaintiff and her only witness that on the death intestate of
the said Private Hayford Boateng, she, the plaintiff, was appointed the
customary successor and administrator of the estate of her deceased brother was
not challenged and, indeed, the defendant did not dispute this fact. The plaintiff
has therefore based her claim to the properties of the deceased on the fact of
her being the customary successor and administrator of her late brother. She,
however, amended her statement of claim by including the fact that she was also
a nominee by the deceased to take his personal effects if he died intestate
while in the Army.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant relied on the fact that she was the wife of the said Private Hayford
Boateng at the time of his death and had two children with him at the time and
that she was the one nominated by the said late Private Hayford Boateng to take
over his personal effects in the event of his death. She called the second
defendant witness, one Major Charles Tachie-Menson, as her witness. The second
defendant witness is the Assistant Director of Legal Services of the Ministry
of Defence, Accra.<o:p></o:p>