AMPAH vs. PRAH [1994]DLCA530

Date	1994-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLCA530

OFORI-BOATENG JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JA

CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

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

[1994]DLCA530
																																						<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">AMPAH<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">PRAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 201<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 27
JANUARY 1994<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<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">

W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

OFORI-BOATENG, ADJABENG AND
LUTTERODT JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ADJABENG JA.<o:p></o:p>On 7 November 1991 the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred
to as the plaintiff), Ebusuapanyin Kofi Prah, the head of the Adwenadze family
of Ekumfi Adansimaim, took action against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter
referred to as the defendant), Mrs Nancy Eddie Ampah, the administratrix of the
estate of her late husband, Eddie Ampah. The plaintiff claims as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;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). “A declaration that the
Adwenadze family of Ekumfi Adansimaim, being the maternal family of the
defendant’s husband; Edward Benjamin Kwesi Ampah (deceased) otherwise known as
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:1.0in;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).
An order upon the defendant, as the sole or surviving
administratrix of the said estate by 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 the head of the said maternal
family.”<o:p></o:p>On being served with the writ of summons, the defendant entered a
conditional appearance thereto and later filed a motion seeking the dismissal
of the action. The grounds upon which the defendant based her application are
two. The first, is that the plaintiff’s family is estopped by the judgment
given in her favour in two consolidated suits brought by the plaintiff’s family
against her earlier at the High Court, Cape Coast. The appeals from this
judgment to both the Court of Appeal (see Darbah v Ampah [1989-90] 1 GLR 598,
CA) and the Supreme Court (see Darbah v Ampah [1989-90] 2 GLR 103, SC) were
dismissed and judgment given in favour of the defendant. The other ground upon
which the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s present action is based
is that the action is statute-barred. These grounds are neatly set out in
paragraphs (11), (12) and (13) of the affidavit in support of the application.
These are as follows:<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">“(11) In the circumstances, I am advised by my solicitor and
verily believe same to be true that the plaintiff herein is estopped per rem
judicatam from instituting this present action. <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">(12) Further, I am also advised by my solicitor and verily believe
same to be true that the plaintiff cannot be allowed by law to litigate his
imaginary claim (bogus as it is) piecemeal. <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">(13) I am also advised by my solicitor and verily believe same to
be true that the plaintiff’s action is statute-barred by virtue of the
provisions of the law governing limitation of actions and that in view of the
date of death of my husband, this action is thoroughly incompetent and ought to
be dismissed in limine.”<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s answer has been set out in paragraphs (4), (5),
(6) and (8) of his affidavit in opposition. The plaintiff deposed therein as
follows:<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">“(4) As exhibit A shows, starting from the claim in suit No 22/74,
reproduced at page 2 and for the rest of that judgment the issue in the former
litigation (which was decided against me and also against the present
plaintiff’s </main>