BARIMAH vs. ANIMAH [2001]DLCA1179

Date	2001-07-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLCA1179

AFREH JA

GBADEGBE JA

OWUSU-ANSAH JA

S K KODUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

NTIM BOATENG FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[2001]DLCA1179
																																						<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">BARIMAH<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">ANIMAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
2 GLR 609<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>S K
KODUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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">

NTIM
BOATENG FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
<o:p></o:p>

AFREH,
GBADEGBE AND OWUSU-ANSAH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Afreh JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is another example of how members of a family of a successful person, who while
alive has acquired some property, dissipate their resources and perhaps those
of the estate of the deceased in a protracted litigation over succession to him
and the distribution of his property.<o:p></o:p>Kwaku
Owusu died intestate on 6 February 1972 leaving behind properties including
farms, house No OI 161, Kumasi, and house No ME 130, also in Kumasi. He also
had three sisters, two of whom survived him. At the fortieth day rites, members
of his family met to choose his successor and to distribute his property. They
chose Ofosuhene, a son of the second sister, Afua Achaamaa, as his successor.
They also gave him house No OI 161 a one-story house or dantia which Kwaku
Owusu used to occupy, as custom demanded. They gave house No ME 130 to the most
senior sister, Akua Kru, and her children, and farms at Ntotoroso in the
Brong-Ahafo Region to the youngest sister Afua Kimah. A son of Akua Kru, Kofi
Darkwa, protested against the appointment of Ofosuhene as Kwaku Owusu’s
successor and the allocation of house No OI 161 to him since according to him,
Akua Kru, as the most senior sister, should have been appointed successor
because until the generation of brothers and sisters was exhausted, a nephew or
niece cannot be appointed. He took his case to the Agonahene, a relative, who
called a meeting of the family to resolve the dispute. The Agonahene confirmed
the dispositions made by the family at the fortieth day funeral rites but Kofi
Darkwa rejected that settlement.<o:p></o:p>As
the customary successor to Kwaku Owusu, Ofosuhene applied for letters of
administration in respect of Kwaku Owusu’s property. Akua Kru caveated. At the
hearing, after discussions between the parties or their counsel, Ofosuhene
agreed that Akua Kru should take the letters. On obtaining the letters, Akua
Kru reversed the decisions of the family: she allocated house No OI 161, Kumasi
to herself and house No ME 130 to Ofosuhene but left the allocation to Akua
Kumah intact. She claimed that Ofosuhene had renounced his right as Kwaku
Owusu’s successor in her favour. The new disposition led to this action by
Ofosuhene.<o:p></o:p>The
trial judge on 6 April 1995 gave judgment in favour of the defendant and gave
his reasons on 29 June 1995. It is against this judgment that the instant
appeal was brought. The appeal raises three main issues for consideration:<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">(a).
whether the learned trial
judge was right in holding that the plaintiff (Ofosuhene) renounced his right
or position as the customary successor of the late Kwaku Owusu in favour of
Akua Kru by the consent order of the court;<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">