EDWARD FYNN-SACKEY vs. IRENE FYNN OPOKU AND RAPHAEL FYNN-SACKEY [2023]DLCA17139

Date	2023-01-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO H1/218/2021
Citation No.	[2023]DLCA17139

HENRY KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING)

ANTHON OPPONG JA

RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA

SOLOMON KOFI ADDO FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AKUA AMERLEY FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2023]DLCA17139
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

<a name="_Hlk152849823">EDWARD FYNN-SACKEY <o:p></o:p></a>

(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

IRENE FYNN OPOKU AND RAPHAEL FYNN-SACKEY<o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

SUIT NO H1/218/2021&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&nbsp;JANUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>

SOLOMON KOFI ADDO FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT ,<o:p></o:p>

</div>

HENRY KWOFIE, JA (PRESIDING), ANTHON OPPONG,
JA, RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG, JA<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;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;

ANTHONY OPPONG,
JA<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The plaintiﬀ/appellant, hereafter to be referred
to simply as appellant and the defendants/respondents, hereafter to be referred
to also as respondents, are children of Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey who died intestate
on the 2nd day of August 2016.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

In the life time of the late Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey, he acquired
House Number J81 Buade, Nungua in the name of the appellant.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The appellant contended therefore that his late father
intended that property as a gift to him; invoking the principle of presumption
of advancement of that property in his favour.

When letters of administration in respect of the estate
of their deceased father were to be applied for, the applicants sought to list
the H/No J81 as part of the inventory of the estate of the late Emmanuel
Fynn-Sackey. The appellant protested and the dispute arising therefrom
culminated in the suit the appellant instituted against the respondents by
which the appellant sought for a declaration that in acquiring H/No. J81 Buade,
Nungua in the name of appellant his late father intended it as a gift to him and
that same does not form part of the estate of the late father Emmanuel
Fynn-Sackey.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

After the trial of the case the trial High Court
dismissed the appellant’s case on the basis that the presumption of advancement
was eﬀectively
rebuked on the preponderance of the evidence.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The appellant being dissatisﬁed of the judgment of the
trial High Court appealed to this court on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial;<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
learned trial judge erred in concluding that the evidence on record adequately
rebuked the presumption of advancement;<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

3.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;