ETUA vs. SIKA-KYERE-ABUSUA [1982]DLHC2125

Date	1982-05-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2125

TWUMASI J.

D. D. GWIRA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

KOBINA ACQUAYE FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1982]DLHC2125
																																						<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" >ETUA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SIKA-KYERE-ABUSUA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 781<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:
21 MAY 1982<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">

D. D. GWIRA FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

KOBINA ACQUAYE 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
plaintiff is the widow of the late Kobina Kakraba of New Takoradi. Their
marriage was blessed with seven children, five of them surviving the said
Kobina Kakraba. The defendant is the customary successor of the late Kobina
Kakraba. The plaintiff has brought this action against the defendant claiming:<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 house No. 40/1, Lower Town, New Takoradi is the joint property
of the late Kobina Kakraba and the plaintiff or in the alternative a
declaration that the plaintiff and her surviving children under the said
marriage are entitled to the occupation and exclusive possession of house No.
40/1 aforesaid;<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) An
account of all rents received by the defendant from tenants of house No. 40/1
from September 1974 to the date of judgment; and<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) The
refund of the plaintiff’s ¢1,000 which was in the custody of the late Kobina
Kakraba but now with the defendant who has refused to pay same despite repeated
demands.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim for a joint ownership of house No. 40/1 is based on her
contention that her late husband made evident his intention to build the house
as the absolute property of the plaintiff and her children. With this
awareness, she made a substantial contribution of a financial nature to the
construction of the building. According to the plaintiff, the land on which the
house was built was not family property of her late husband but was
self-acquired by the husband at New Takoradi at a time when plots were
allocated to the public by the authorities concerned. Indeed, this fact was
confirmed by the fourth defendant witness.<o:p></o:p>Moreover,
the first plaintiff witness, elder son of the plaintiff, gave such a detailed
and credible evidence about the purchase of the plot that convinced me that the
house was built on a vacant land acquired by the late Kobina Kakraba. I
therefore reject the story of the defendant that Kobina Kakraba converted a
swish house into the new house No. 40/1 in dispute. I gather from the pieces of
evidence given by the defendant and her witnesses, all of the defendant’s
family, that they had no close contact with Kobina Kakraba during the latter’s
lifetime.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Therefore
there is nothing in the testimonies of the defendant and her witnesses which in
my estimation could be treated as a rebuttal of the fact that the plaintiff
contributed substantially to the construction of the house by making available
to the late Kobina Kakraba all her earnings from her trading business in fish
and that Kobina Kakraba used same in purchasing cement, sand, stones, doors,
windows and scantlings. The plaintiff also paid for the installation of
electricity to the house. I am satisfied on the evidence that proportionately,
the plaintiff contributed far more substantially than the late Kobina Kakraba.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question that arises, however, is whether under such circumstances customary
law would treat the plaintiff as joint owner of the house. In Okwabi v. Adonu
(1957) 2 W.A.L.R. 268 at p. 269 the following appears:<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">“It is a
common feature of family life that a son will work with and for his father, and
therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, no presumption
will be raised that property, obtained by the joint efforts of father and son
and held by the father, is held by the father in trust for father and son as
joint tenants or in trust for the son absolutely.”<o:p></o:p>