SOLOMON TACKIE AND AGO BANNERMAN vs. JOHN NETTEY AND SAMPSON KOFI BADU [2021]DLSC10172

Date	2021-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/44/2019
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10172

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

MARFUL-SAU JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

JONATHAN T. SARBLAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS

RAY APPIAH AMPONSAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT WITH IRENE APPIAH AMPONSAH

[2021]DLSC10172
																																						<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" >SOLOMON TACKIE AND AGO BANNERMAN<o:p></o:p>(SUING AS JOINT HEADS OF THE TACKIE
AND BANNERMAN THOMPSON FAMILIES)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APEELLANTS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN NETTEY (SUBSTITUTED BYFRED BIBI
AYIMEH) AND
SAMPSON KOFI BADU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/44/2019&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: 24TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JONATHAN T.
SARBLAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RAY
APPIAH AMPONSAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT WITH
IRENE APPIAH AMPONSAH<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC
(PRESIDING), MARFUL-SAU JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, PROF.
MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>&nbsp;PROLOGUE<o:p></o:p>DOTSE, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>What looked like an ordinary appeal where the
intermediate Court of Appeal concurred in the findings of the trial High Court
and which should have led to an evaluation of the grounds of appeal argued in
the statements of case of the parties soon evaporated into thin air. This came
about after deep and sober reflection on the unprecedented style of the manner
in which learned counsel for the plaintiffs presented his arguments in support
of the appeal. This style of presentation was considered to be an assault on, and
a violent breach of, the settled rules of procedure of this court and the lower
courts as well. This phenomenon therefore necessitated a thorough and
comprehensive analysis of our opinion in this judgment.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this case admit of some controversies,
and it might be very useful to set them out from the perspectives of the
plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant. Thereafter, it will be necessary
to refer to the various overt acts of ownership of the parties in relation to
the properties in dispute. <o:p></o:p>Finally, it is of utmost necessity to consider the
customary law rules of intestate succession as are applicable to the families
in contention; as well as rules of interpretation of what constitutes a valid
Will; what is customary law Will, (Samansiw); what properties a Testator can
include in his Will; and what probate of a Will can vest in the Executors of
the Will and subsequently in the beneficiaries thereof.<o:p></o:p>THE APPEAL<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal by the
Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants hereafter referred to as the Plaintiffs (who
described themselves as joint representatives of the Hanson-Sackey and
Bannerman-Thompson families), against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated
24th July, 2019, in which the properties in dispute were adjudged to
belong to the 1st Defendant/Respondent/Respondent hereafter referred
to as the 1st Defendant representing the Nettey family who trace
their root of title to their grandparents Afua Sackey and Abla Sackey respectively.<o:p></o:p>It must immediately be apparent that, the
plaintiffs have lost twice in this legal contest. The learned trial High Court
Judge, on the 20th day of December 2017 dismissed the Plaintiffs
claims, their appeal to the Court of Appeal was also similarly dismissed, hence
this appeal to the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>FACTS OF
THIS CASE<o:p></o:p>The uncontroverted facts of this appeal are that,
the properties in dispute were originally owned by one Afua Sackey who had
siblings of the full blood namely James Hanson Sackey a brother, and Abla
Sackey a sister respectively.<o:p></o:p>It is not in dispute that Afua Sackey died without
any spouse or child surviving her. During the lifetime of Afua Sackey, she was
reputed to have performed various overt acts of ownership in respect of the
properties. For example, Afua was reputed to have leased part of the properties
in dispute to one Hykel Elias Farah, a Syrian trader for 25 years, from 2nd
May 1929 to be renewed thereafter for another term of 10 years. This
transaction was registered as 1694/1925 a.k.a No. 294/1925. Secondly, one Paul
Yeboah was reputed to have taken over the leasehold of Hykel after several
assignments were made to him thereafter. These assignments</main>