ADADE vs. DADE AND ANOTHER [1989]DLCA248

Date	1989-07-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLCA248

OSEI-HWERE J.A.

AMPIAH J.A.

ESSIEM JA

MMIEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

DR POKU-AMANFO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLCA248
																																						<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" >ADADE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DADE AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 267<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
27 JULY 1989.<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">

MMIEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

DR POKU-AMANFO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.<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">

OSEI-HWERE, AMPIAH AND ESSIEM JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF AMPIAH JA.<o:p></o:p>This is an
appeal from the decision of the High Court, Kumasi, dated 25 May 1987. The
plaintiff in that action was the widow of one Anthony Kwabena Kusi of Kumasi
who died intestate on 29 April 1984. There were five issues of the marriage.
The defendants, a brother and a sister of the late Anthony Kwabena Kusi,
applied for letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased.
The plaintiff caveated; whereupon on 30 July 1984, joint letters of
administration were granted to the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff,
however, claimed that one of the properties included in the estate, namely a
house, Plot 1, Block D16, Nhyiaso, Kumasi had been gifted to her and her
children by her late husband before his death. The court granted the letters of
administration without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to take action
for the determination of the issue, “whether or not H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso,
Kumasi was gifted to the plaintiff and her children by the deceased.”<o:p></o:p>On 11
November 1985, the plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming from the
defendants:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i).&nbsp;&nbsp; “a declaration that the plaintiff and
her children are the lawful owners of H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso, Kumasi and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii). perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants or their agents and servants or both from interfering with the said
house.”<o:p></o:p>In
paragraph 5 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, she averred:<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">“(5) The
plaintiff says that Kwabena Kusi (deceased) died intestate and by the operation
of the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111), the said property known as
H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso becomes vested in herself, and her children.”<o:p></o:p>The reply
to this averment is contained in paragraph 5 of the statement of defence which
states:<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">“(5). The
defendants deny paragraph 5 of the statement of claim and state further that
Anthony Kwabena Kusi (deceased) died on 29 April 1984 while the operation of
the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111) came into effect in 1985 without
any retrospective effect.”<o:p></o:p>One of
the issues agreed upon and set down for determination was “whether or not the
Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111) is applicable to the case.” Flowing
from this issue is the subsidiary issue whether or not PNDCL 111 had any
retrospective effect. On 25 February 1985, the court made the following notes:<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">&nbsp;“By Court: <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">In view
of the information from counsel for the plaintiff that there is already pending
before High Court 3 the matter now before this court, I make the following
order: Let the registrar trace that case docket and add it to this case docket
to enable counsel for the parties argue the objection in limine stated in the
additional issue in the defendants additional issues.”<o:p></o:p>