AMPOMA (DECD.); OPPONG AND OTHERS vs. OPPONG AND ANOTHER [1989]DLSC527

Date	1989-01-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC527

AMPIAH J.A.

F. E. OBENG FOR THE APPLICANT.

ADU MANTE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLSC527
																																						<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" >AMPOMA (DECD.); OPPONG AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>OPPONG AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] GLR 83<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 JANUARY 1987<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">

F. E. OBENG FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

ADU MANTE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is a
matter involving the estate of the late Sampson Kwame Oppong Ampoma who died
intestate on 12 May 1984. Letters of administration in respect of the estate
were taken by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the administrators)
on 3 March 1986. The estate was alleged to have been distributed on 31 March
1986.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is
an application by summons brought by the applicants against the administrators
under Order 60, r. 40 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.
140A). An initial writ of summons taken by the applicants against the
administrators was abandoned. Order 60, r. 40 of L.N. 140A provides that:<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">“40. A
person claiming to be a creditor or legatee, or the next of kin, or one of the
next of kin of a deceased person, may apply for and obtain a summons from the
Court requiring the executor or administrator (as the case may be) of the
deceased to attend before the Court and show cause why an order for the
administration of the property of the deceased should not be made.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants (except Opanin Yaw Dorsah Sampong) are the children of the deceased.
Opanin Yaw Dorsah Sampong is the head of the deceased’s family. The first and
second administrators are also the children of the deceased and the third
administrator is the brother and apparently the customary successor of the
deceased.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
necessary, before a meaningful order is made under the summons, to determine
which law is applicable to the estate of the deceased. Both counsel agreed and
submitted accordingly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
contention of counsel for the applicants that the law applicable to the estate
is the law existing before the coming into force of the Intestate Succession
Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 111), namely the customary law as to succession under the
matrilineal law of inheritance. Counsel for the administrators does not agree.
It is his contention that the law applicable is P.N.D.C.L. 111 and that in any
case distribution has already been completed under that Law. Section 1 of
P.N.D.C.L. 111 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">“1. (1)
On the commencement of this Law, the devolution of the estate of any person who
dies intestate on or after such commencement shall be determined in accordance
with the provisions of this Law subject to subsection (2) of this section and
the rules of private international law.<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;(2) This Law shall not apply to any stool,
skin or family property.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
however provided in section 21 of the same Law that:<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">“21. (1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Law or any other enactment
the provisions of this Law shall be applicable in the settlement of any claim
or adjudication pendi</main>