IN RE KORANTENG-ADDOW (DECD); KORANTENG-ADDOW vs. KORANTENG [1996]DLCA568

Date	1996-12-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1996]DLCA568

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

SAPONG JA

BLAY FOR THE APPELLANT.

OSEI NYAME FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1996]DLCA568
																																						<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">IN RE KORANTENG-ADDOW (DECD); KORANTENG-ADDOW<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">KORANTENG<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 252<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: 12
DECEMBER 1996<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BLAY FOR THE 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">

OSEI NYAME FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

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

</div>JUDGMENT OF WOOD JA.<o:p></o:p>The appellant, who is a natural child of the deceased, Dr Gustav
Koranteng-Addow, applied for letters of administration to administer his
estate. The respondent, a paternal brother of the deceased, caveated. After a
summary determination of the question of which of the two persons is entitled
to the grant, the trial judge concluded the matter 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">“I accordingly hold and find as a fact that the deceased intestate
was survived by the four children mentioned by the caveator.<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">I also order that from the affidavit, evidence and other exhibits
placed at my disposal, letters of administration should be jointly granted to
the applicant, the caveator and to Mr Reynolds Mfodwo Koranteng (the two
customary successors) to administer the estate of the deceased jointly for and
on behalf of those who are in law beneficially entitled to enjoy the estate of
the deceased.”<o:p></o:p>The appellant however was dissatisfied with these crucial
findings, namely (1) the number of children who survived the deceased; and (2)
the appointment of the caveator as a co-administrator. Consequently, he caused
his solicitors to appeal against the decision. Four original grounds of appeal
were filed. These were, by the additional grounds of appeal filed on 9 July
1996, expanded to seventeen. For our purposes, the relevant ground is ground
(a) of the original grounds of appeal which is the general well-known and often
used ground—”That the ruling was against the weight of the evidence.”<o:p></o:p>One may wonder how come out of the seventeen grounds which were
filed only this simple ground became relevant. The reason is this. At the
hearing, the additional grounds (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) were also argued. It
raised the important issue of whether, given the facts of the case and the
applicable law, the appointment of Koranteng as a co-administrator is valid. In
the course of the argument, however, the appellant’s counsel made this point
clear that they would not be averse to a joint grant to them and the customary
successor of the deceased on the matrilineal side. In other words, that their
dissatisfaction lay with the appointment of the customary successor on the
patrilineal side, as a co-administrator. Because the respondent’s counsel
quickly agreed to this compromise, emphasising that in any case they had all
along been advocating this line of action, it became clear that the only
relevant matter for consideration in this appeal then is the question of the
number of children who survived him.<o:p></o:p>Before I proceed to examine this issue, I wish to make one quick
comment. The appellant, applied by way of motion to tender at the hearing of
this appeal, a document showing who the natural father of the two of the said
children, namely Susan Koranteng-Addow and Nana Amma Ofosua Koranteng-Addow
was. The panel, differently constituted, with me presiding granted it. At the
hearing, however, the appellant’s counsel never used this exhibit at all which
we had allowed as exhibit 1. It is not surprising. The grounds upon which the
learned judge concluded that these two young women are children of the deceased
were not that the deceased was their natural or biological father but rather
that they were “recognised” by the deceased as his children. In matters like
this then, birth or baptismal certificates describing who the natural father
was, are not necessarily relevant.<o:p></o:p>I will now deal with the arguments put forward by the appellant’s
counsel. Counsel submitted that in an action of this kind, ie where the
claimant wishes to establish that that kind of recognition ie recognition as a
child, was accorded the person, obituary notices and tributes cannot offer the
necessary proof. Counsel’s contention is that some evidence better than any of
these should be proffered.<o:p></o:p>Counsel’s further argument is that having regard to exhibit X, an
affidavit sworn to by one of the Liverpool children–Susan—in which she
described the deceased as his stepfather, the conclusion that she was
recognised as a child and so was entitled to the property was definitely wrong
and unsupported by the record.<o:p></o:p>