PRAH vs. AMPAH [1992]DLHC2054

Date	1992-05-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLHC2054

BENIN J.

W.A N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

HAYIBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

[1992]DLHC2054
																																						<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">PRAH<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">AMPAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 34<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>W.A N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.,<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">

HAYIBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff sues as head of the Adwenadze family of Ekumfi
Adansimaim. The defendant is sued as the administratrix of the estate of the
late Eddie Ampah. The reliefs sought are two, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; “A declaration that the
Adwenadze family of Ekumfi Adansimaim being the maternal family of the
defendant’s husband Eddie Ampah who died intestate on 29 May 1967 is entitled
to one-third of his estate under and by virtue of section 48 of the Marriage
Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.). <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order upon the defendant, as the sole or surviving
administratrix of the said estate by a revised grant dated 4 December 1972, to
execute a vesting assent or otherwise take immediate steps to vest the said
one-third share of the said estate in the plaintiff as head of the said
maternal family.”<o:p></o:p>The defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a motion
for an order dismissing the suit herein. The grounds are that the plaintiff’s
action is statute-barred and is also affected by estoppel per rem judicatam. I
thought these were matters which ought to be pleaded under and by virtue of
Order 19, r. 16 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) and
then set down for argument under Order 25, rr. 2 and 3, being points of law
which are nevertheless based on facts. But the procedure adopted, however
irregular it may appear to be, was not questioned by the plaintiff who filed an
affidavit on merits which is a fresh step in the action and contested the
application and is therefore deemed to have waived any irregularity under Order
70, r. 2 of L.N. 140A. It thus behoves the court to deal with the arguments
before it.<o:p></o:p>I shall take the question of limitation, to start with. Counsel
for the defendant relied on section 8(1) of the Limitation Decree, 1972
(N.R.C.D. 54) and said the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in 1972
when letters of administration were granted to the defendant herein to
administer the estate of the late Eddie Ampah. And having waited till 1991
before taking this action the plaintiff’s action is time barred. Counsel for
the plaintiff countered this argument by saying that it is misconceived in the
sense that limitation applies only where there is adverse possession. And the
relationship between an administratrix and the beneficiaries cannot be said to
be adverse since the former has sworn to distribute the estate according to
law. Adverse possession only set in following the court litigations which
terminated at the Supreme Court in the defendant’s favour and which made the
defendant believe the entire estate was hers. The last Supreme Court judgment is
dated July 1990 and so the twelve-year limitation period will not apply to this
case. Section 8(1) of N.R.C.D. 54 reads:<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">“8. (1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, no action in
respect of any claim to the movable estate of a deceased person or to any share
or interest in such estate, whether under a will or on intestacy, shall be
brought after the expiration of 12 years from the date when the right to
receive the share or interest accrued.”<o:p></o:p>The first question to ask is this: When did the interest in the
movable property of Eddie Ampah accrue to the Adwenadze family? By the known
Akan customary practice, the movable properties of a deceased are distributed
among those entitled on the 40-day anniversary or at the latest the one-year
anniversary of his death or when a customary successor is appointed and
nowadays after letters of administration have been secured. According to the
second relief as indorsed on the writ the defendant was given a revised grant
of letters of administration on 4 December 1972 and that was before the
litigation in respect of the estate began.<o:p></o:p>