JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH JA.
This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, Kumasi, dated 25 May 1987. The plaintiff in that action was the widow of one Anthony Kwabena Kusi of Kumasi who died intestate on 29 [p.269] April 1984. There were five issues of the marriage. The defendants, a brother and a sister of the late Anthony Kwabena Kusi, applied for letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff caveated; whereupon on 30 July 1984, joint letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff, however, claimed that one of the properties included in the estate, namely a house, Plot 1, Block D16, Nhyiaso, Kumasi had been gifted to her and her children by her late husband before his death. The court granted the letters of administration without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to take action for the determination of the issue, "whether or not H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso, Kumasi was gifted to the plaintiff and her children by the deceased."
On 11 November 1985, the plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming from the defendants:
"(i) a declaration that the plaintiff and her children are the lawful owners of H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso, Kumasi and
(ii) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents and servants or both from interfering with the said house."
In paragraph 5 of the plaintiff's statement of claim, she averred:
"(5) The plaintiff says that Kwabena Kusi (deceased) died intestate and by the operation of the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111), the said property known as H/No Block D 16, Nhyiaso becomes vested in herself, and her children."
The reply to this averment is contained in paragraph 5 of the statement of defence which states:
"(5). The defendants deny paragraph 5 of the statement of claim and state further that Anthony Kwabena Kusi (deceased) died on 29 April 1984 while the operation of the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111) came into effect in 1985 without any retrospective effect."
One of the issues agreed upon and set down for determination was "whether or not the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111) is applicable to the case." Flowing from this issue is the subsidiary issue whether or not PNDCL 111 had any retrospective effect. On 25 February 1985, the court made the following notes:
[p.270]
"By Court:
In view of the information from counsel for the plaintiff that there is already pending before High Court 3 th