ADJOA BIMA v. YAW BARFI PER ADJOA ASANTEWA, SUCCESSOR TO LATE KOJO FORDJUOR
September 14, 1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Quashie-Idun, J
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
September 14, 1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In an appeal concerning succession to cocoa farms in Ashanti, Quashie-Idun, J. addressed whether a widow was entitled to one-third of her late husband’s estate under an Ashanti Confederacy Council rule. The widow alleged she and her children helped cultivate the farms, which the defendant had inherited. The Native Court of Kumawu found the assistance but held the Confederacy rule did not apply because the death preceded its promulgation; the Asantehene’s "A" Court reversed. On further appeal, the court ruled that any modification of customary succession by the Confederacy Council required Governor-in-Council sanction and publication in the Gazette; no evidence established such sanction. Citing Afua Kosia v. Kojo Nimo, the court concluded the Native Appeal Court erred. It further held the rule was not retrospective and that mere assistance in cultivation did not create ownership rights under Akan custom, and it reinstated the Native Court’s judgment, with costs.
Judgment :
The important issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to a third share of her deceased husband's estate in accordance with rules laid down by the Ashanti Confederacy Council. Her claim before the Trial Court reads as follows:-
"Plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for a third undivided share of the plaintiff's deceased husband's cocoa farms which have been inherited by the defendant and which were made and cultivated with the assistance of the plaintiff and her children which the defendant has refused to give the plaintiff her third share contrary to the rules laid down by the Asante Confederacy Council and promulgated with the Confederacy ".
The evidence of the respondent was clearly that she had assisted her husband now deceased in cultivating certain farms. The trial Native Court held that the plaintiff had in fact assisted her husband in the cultivation of the farms but that in its view the ruling of the Ashanti Confederacy Council did not apply to this case as the deceased had in fact died some years before the said rules were made.
The plaintiff appealed to the Asantehene's "A" Court which allowed the appeal. The gists of the judgment of the Native Appeal Court were (1) that the property was proved to have been acquired by the joint efforts of the appellant and her late husband (2) that in " native customary usage " it is not infrequent that when a woman assists her husband in cultivating cocoa farms a third portion of the farm is apportioned to her by the relatives of the deceased husband.
As to the first point there was no evidence on record before the trial Native Court that the property in dispute was acquired by the appellant and her husband. The evidence was rather that the deceased having acquired the lant wife assisted him in cultivating it. There is a difference between "a ion of land" and "cultivation of land". On the second point, I am of thoupinion that the Native Appeal Court was expressing a sentiment rather than reiterating a recognised native custom. It is a very common practice in this country for wives and children to assist their husbands and fathers in cultivating farms. But that in itself does not entitle the widow or children to acquire any portion of the property in accordance with the Akan Native Custom after the death of the husband or father. I believe that it is because of this injustice to the widow and children that the Ashanti Confederacy Council very wisely passed the r