NANA NGOA ANYIMAA KODOM II vs. LYDIA ANANE AND AKUA NKUA [2012]DLCA8638

Date	2012-07-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/04/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8638

MARFUL –SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

BENSON J

MR. JAMES MARSHALL BEBLIEB FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. PAUL NGUAH-GYAPONG FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS.

[2012]DLCA8638
																																						<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" >NANA NGOA
ANYIMAA KODOM II<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>LYDIA ANANE
AND AKUA NKUA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/04/2011&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 19TH JULY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
JAMES MARSHALL BEBLIEB FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
PAUL NGUAH-GYAPONG FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL
–SAU JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, BENSON J<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA :-
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court sitting at Sefwi- Wiawso
dated the 3rd of December 2009 which dismissed the action by the
plaintiff herein referred to as the appellant. The brief facts of the case are
that the defendants to be referred to as respondents applied for the grant of
Letters of Administration of the estate of their deceased father Nana Kofi Ngoa
III, also known as Nana Kofi Anane. In the application the respondents listed
two cocoa farms all situate at Dominibo No. 1 and an unnumbered building on a
plot of land at Bibiani as personal properties of their deceased father. The
appellant challenged the inclusion of the said properties in the inventory
filed in support of the application for the Letters of Administration. <o:p></o:p>Consequently,
the appellant caused a writ to be issued against the respondents claiming that
the two cocoa farms and the unnumbered building were properties belonging to
the Aduana family of Kyekyewere or Adenkye. At the end of the trial the court
found that the properties were self acquired by respondents late father Nana
Kofi Ngoa III, who was the Chief of Bibiani and the Krontihene of the Sefwi –
Anhwiaso Traditional Area. From the record in March 1992, the government
withdrew the recognition of some chiefs including respondents’ deceased father
and he was succeeded by the appellant as the Chief of Bibiani and the
Krontihene of the Sefwi –Anhwiaso Traditional Area.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant dissatisfied with the judgment has appealed to this court urging the
court to reverse the judgment in his favour. The original Notice of Appeal had
one ground to wit that the judgment was against the weight of evidence. By the
leave of this court the appellant filed and argued additional grounds namely:-<o:p></o:p>a) The
trial court erred when it held that plaintiff lacked capacity to institute the
action.<o:p></o:p>b) The
court erred when it held that the disputed cocoa farms were the self acquired
properties of the deceased Nana Kofi Ngoa III alias Nana Kofi Anane.<o:p></o:p>c) The
trial court erred when it failed to find that the farms in dispute are family
properties of the plaintiff/ appellant.<o:p></o:p>d) The
trial court erred when it held that the unnumbered building in dispute is the
self acquired property of Nana Kofi Ngoa III, alias Nana Kofi Anane.<o:p></o:p>e) The
trial court erred when it failed to find that the unnumbered building in
dispute is the property of the plaintiff/appellant.<o:p></o:p>The
above grounds from their formulation could be reduced to two namely:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial court erred when
it held that the plaintiff lacked capacity to institute the action.<o:p></o:p>