ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER vs. QUARCOO [1991]DLHC2010

Date	1991-05-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC2010

LUTTERODT J.

BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

R. O. SOLOMON FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1991]DLHC2010
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">QUARCOO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 180<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

R. O. SOLOMON FOR THE DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>Theophillia Alaba Codjoe died intestate on 28 November 1986. When
the plaintiffs applied for a grant of letters of administration to administer
her estate the defendant caveated. Because the parties could not come to an
agreement between themselves as to the person or persons to whom a grant ought
to be made, the plaintiffs were ordered to take out a writ for a determination
of the usual question in cases of this kind, i.e. as to who is better entitled
to a grant.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs herein base their claim for that relief and also
for other consequential reliefs on the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1).
That they are the mother and
head of the immediate family, and sister and customary successor to the
deceased person.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2).
That the whole of the
deceased’s estate devolves on them.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo5;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(3). That the defendant being the deceased’s concubine has no interest
whatsoever in the estate.<o:p></o:p>The defendant on the other hand contends that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;
He was the husband of the
deceased and that the two of them were married under Fanti customary law.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;
The two children he had with
the deceased, which fact is admitted by the plaintiffs, are in his custody and
assuming even that he had no interest in the estate he is entitled to the grant
as father of the said children.<o:p></o:p>In addition, he has counterclaimed for the sum of ¢13,000 being
money had and received for the use of himself.<o:p></o:p>It is plain that one of the most serious and controversial issues
for determination in this matter is whether or not the defendant was married to
the deceased under Fanti customary law. Before I do so I would like to find out
what in law amounts to marriage under customary law. The defendant’s counsel
has referred to a number of local cases which state what the incidents of a
customary law marriage are. The authorities are: Quaye v. Kuevi (1934) DCt
‘31-’37, 69 a decision dating as far back as 8 May 1934; Asumah v. Khair [1959]
G.L.R. 353, C.A.; Yaotey v. Quaye [1961] 2 G.L.R. 573; Sackitey’s Caveat, Re
[1962] 1 G.L.R. 180 and Sa</main>