ESHUN vs. JOHNFIA [1981]DLHC2122

Date	1981-06-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2122

TWUMASI J.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

ISAAC K. WINNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1981]DLHC2122
																																						<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" >ESHUN <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>JOHNFIA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 441<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 JUNE 1981<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">

JAMES MERCER FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. <o:p></o:p>

ISAAC K. WINNEY 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs, all petty traders, are surviving children of the late Ato Kwamina
Essuman of house No. 70/8, Third Street, Sekondi. The defendant is the
customary successor of the said Ato Kwamina Essuman (deceased). House No. 70/8,
Third Street, Sekondi and five others were built on lands not family property
by the plaintiffs’ said father and by his own exertions, unaided by the members
of his family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That the
late Ato Kwamina Essuman in his lifetime was ebulliently well-to-do is borne
out by the numerous houses which he died possessed of. But true to the
inexorable ironies of fate, this prosperous man did not live longer to enjoy
the fruits of his labours. Upon his death, his uterine nephew, the defendant
herein, was appointed his customary successor. The latter now lives with the
plaintiffs in one of the houses, namely house No. 70/8, Third Street, Sekondi.
The remaining buildings are: one at Nkroful junction near Ketan, one at Ekuase
near Sekondi, three at Essaman, also near Sekondi. All the five latter houses
have been let out to tenants by the customary successor.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs by this suit claim for:<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) A
declaration that as children of the late Ato Kwamina Essuman they have a life
interest in all the self-acquired properties of their father.<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">(b) A
declaration that the said life interest includes an interest or share in the
income accruing from the rents from the said self-acquired houses of their
father.<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">(c) That
the court determine the nature or extent of such interest or share because, as
they say, their late father’s family have denied the existence of any such
interest and have failed, despite repeated demands, to determine their
interest.<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">(d) An
order that the defendant pay to the plaintiffs the interest so determined with
effect from 1974 to the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant avers that he has permitted a brother of the plaintiffs to occupy two
rooms in house No. 70/8 and another brother to stay in one of the houses at
Essaman. His counsel contends that the plaintiffs’ interest in the properties
does not go beyond their right to reside in the house of their late father
subject to good behaviour and that they are not entitled to a share in the
rents accruing from the houses let out to tenants. The issue in the case
resolved itself ultimately to one of law as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to a share in the rents accruing from the houses.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As usual,
the point of departure in any discussion of a question of customary law is
Sarbah’s invaluable book on Fanti Customary Laws 1968 (3rd ed.) especially
where as in this case the parties are Fantis. Counsel for the plaintiffs relied
on the following passages in Sarbah’s book: First, the learned author states at
p.50 that:<o:p></o:p>“On the
death of the husband, his widows, him surviving, and their children by him, are
entitled to reside in any house built by him, and the children and their issue
have a life interest in such house, subject to good behaviour.<o:p></o:p>