OWUSU AND ANOTHER vs. AGYENTOA [1995]DLCA599

Date	1995-01-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1995]DLCA599

AMUAH JA

BROBBEY JA

SAPONG JA

A AWUKU FOR OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ABSENT.

[1995]DLCA599
																																						<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">OWUSU 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">AGYENTOA<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 45<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: 19
JANUARY 1995<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>A AWUKU FOR OFOSU ASANTE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
ABSENT. <o:p></o:p>

AMUAH, BROBBEY AND SAPONG JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AMUAH JA.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the decision of Berko J sitting at the
High Court, Kumasi delivered on 28 July 1987. The bare facts of the case are
that a testatrix, Madam Afua Mansah, devised her portion in house No OT 77,
Odumasi District of Kumasi in her will dated 8 September 1950, 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">“2. I give and bequeath unto my son Daniel Kwame Owusu and my
daughter Elizabeth Victoria Mensah for their use, absolutely my share of one
half (1/2) undivided moiety of premises situate and known as Plot 77 in the
Odumasi District of Kumasi.”<o:p></o:p>Clause (8) of the said will charged both the son and the daughter
with the responsibility of meeting her expenses from rents collected from her
portion of the house and securing for her a decent burial.<o:p></o:p>In 1959 the said Daniel Kwame Owusu died leaving behind two
issues: Diana Owusu and Daniel Owusu who are the defendants in this instant
case. Thereafter the said Daniel Kwame Owusu was succeeded by his uterine
sister Elizabeth Victoria Mensah who took letters of administration in respect
of her deceased brother’s estate on 4 April 1961. She then sold the brother’s
portion to the plaintiff herein in 1984. The plaintiff as a landlady has now
instituted this action for the recovery of the portion occupied by the
defendants in their father’s lifetime and now continue to occupy. Before
instituting the action she was minded to perfect her title by stamping and
registering the documents of title in respect of her brother’s portion of the
house. The dispute went before the district court which entered judgment in
favour of the plaintiff, the landlady and purchaser for value and ordered the
defendants to vacate the premises forthwith. On appeal to the High Court, it
confirmed the judgment of the district court. It found no merits in the appeal
and dismissed it with costs.<o:p></o:p>The defendants being aggrieved have appealed to this court urging
the court to hold: “(1) That the judgment was wrong in law and in particular
the learned judge misconceived the legal effect of the will.”<o:p></o:p>The starting point is to consider whether the devise in the will
created a tenancy in common or a joint tenancy. Upon the death of a joint
tenant her interest accrues to the surviving joint tenant. We must first
consider the tenor of the instrument whether it was intended to create a joint
tenancy. For a person who believes in the prime mover of the universe, she
would like the children to avoid petty quarrels, and not cheat each other. It
follows that after the expenses of the deceased have been met, the excess
amount should be shared, if not equally, between them. Dennison J in the case
of Akosuah v Damuabah (1955) DC (Land) ‘52- ‘55, 287 at 288 cited the principle
laid down by Lord Hatherley LC in Robertson v Fraser (1871) 6 ChApp 696 at 699
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">“. . . that anything which in the slightest degree indicates an
intention to divide the property must be held to abrogate the idea of a joint
tenancy, and to create a tenancy in common.”<o:p></o:p>The testatrix gave them equal powers over the property and
required from them fairness in their dealings. No doubt the idea of tenancy in
common persisted after her death. The son and daughter occupy separate and
distinct portions of half portion of the building devised to both of them.
After the death of the son, the sister succeeded and took letters of
administration in respect of the late brother’s estate. The conduct of the
children and Elizabeth showed that the property was to be divided and held by a
tenancy in common. Furthermore, the instrument does not expressly declare the
estate granted to the children for their own use without any interference from
anyone to be in joint tenancy nor does the instrument state that the devise
should be construed exclusively by English law. Kwamena Bentsi-Enchill in his
book entitled Ghana Land Law at p 244 stated with delight 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">“A satisfactory position in the case law was reached long ago to
the effect that the use by natives of a conveyance drawn up in accordance with
the form</main>