JOSEPH KWAKU ANHWERE vs. ANTHONY AMPONSAH BADU, MRS. JANET BADU AND EMMANUEL BADU [2014]DLHC8509

JOSEPH KWAKU ANHWERE vs. ANTHONY AMPONSAH BADU, MRS. JANET BADU AND EMMANUEL BA... [2014]DLHC8509

Date	2014-12-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E1/98/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC8509

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

ANTHONY OSEI POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KWAKU YEBOAH APPIAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2014]DLHC8509
																																						<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" >JOSEPH KWAKU
ANHWERE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY
AMPONSAH BADU, MRS. JANET BADU AND EMMANUEL BADU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. E1/98/2014&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:
3RD DECEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY
OSEI POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KWAKU
YEBOAH APPIAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The plaintiff described himself as a
Security Officer and the Ekuona Abusuapanin of Ayeduase in Kumasi. He asserted
he issued the instant writ of summons for himself and on behalf of his family
against the defendants collectively as the administrators of the estate of one
Solomon Kwaku Badu, deceased. Indeed, the defendants are the customary
successor, widow and son respectively of the deceased Solomon Kwaku Badu. In
his lifetime, the deceased worked at Tepa Sawmill Limited.He built on Plot No.
AY 21, Ayeduase, Kumasi, consisting of a main structure of fifteen rooms and an
outhouse of seven rooms. The outhouse was the first to be put up, and by the
evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses, he did so to provide decent
accommodation for their common mother, who, because of lack of suitable place,
moved to live with a woman called Madam Ataa. Plaintiff’s case is that it was
Madam Ataa who encouraged the deceased to put up the outhouse, primarily, to
house his mother. The plaintiff and both of his witnesses are brothers to the
deceased. The first witness (PW1) called Twumasi Snr said he is a mason. He
adduced evidence that he and his younger brother, Twumasi Jnr (PW2) constructed
the buildings with funds provided by their elder brother, the deceased. It was
asserted by the plaintiff that the main house was built some six years after
the construction of the outhouse, referred to as a boys quarters, hence they
were designated as ‘A’ and ‘B’ for the outhouse and the main building
respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is also the case of the plaintiff
that the deceased gifted the outhouse to his family, consequently the rooms in
it, except one, allocated to Madam Ataa were occupied by the family members of
the deceased because of the gift. He further asserted that when the deceased
came home on retirement, he lived in the main house with his wife and children
having acknowledged he had given away the outhouse by way of the gift.
According to plaintiff, as an incidence of the gift, the deceased caused
separate electricity meters to be installed on the buildings but he paid the
bills for both properties in his lifetime though&nbsp; the outhouse was occupied by his family
members, the implication being that notwithstanding that the deceased had
nothing to do with the outhouse because he had divested himself of the property
by gifting it to his family members who took possession and occupied same, he
continued to foot the electricity bills of the occupants. Plaintiff declared
that because the deceased had nothing to do with the outhouse, it was his
family which decided on how vacant rooms in it were occupied.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to the plaintiff, despite the
ownership of his family over the disputed outhouse, the defendants included it
in the inventory of the estate of late Solomon Kwaku Badu in an application for
Letters of Administration upon his death, and worst of all, as the head of
family of the deceased, he was not consulted, and therefore had no input in the
application. It is therefore his case that the inclusion of the outhouse in the
inventory was unlawful, hence the Letters of Administration was improperly
obtained. He thus instituted the instant action against the defendants, jointly
and severally, claiming (a) declaration of title to and recovery of possession
of the seven bedroom outhouse being his family property, (b) an order expunging
the property from the inventory of the estate of the deceased as appears in the
Letters of Administration granted the defendants, (c) perpetual injunction
against the defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendants denied the assertion of the
plaintiff of a gift of the outhouse to plaintiff’s family. They admitted that
members of the family of the deceased lived in the disputed property even
during his lifetime but insisted they did so with his consent and out of his
magnanimity and unselfishness and not because of any gift of his self-acquired
property. Indeed, they asserted that the children of the deceased also lived in
the outhouse, and one of them was called Amankwa Badu. This assertion was
intended to negate the assertion of plaintiff that only members of the
matrilineal family of the deceased occupied the property as a result of the gift
made to the family. It is their case that the deceased put up the property
intending it to be exclusively owned by him and this position was made known by
him at his 70th birthday celebration in the presence of members of
his family.<o:p></o:p>