ADJOA BIMA v. YAW BARFI PER ADJOA ASANTEWA, SUCCESSOR TO LATE KOJO FORDJUOR
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Quashie-Idun, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
- Equity and Trusts
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff's claim for one-third of her deceased husband's cocoa farms, supposedly warranted by the Ashanti Confederacy Council rules, was dismissed initially and finally. The trial court's original ruling was reinstated on appeal, withholding the plaintiff's share due to the non-retroactivity of the mentioned rules and lack of sanction from the Governor-in-Council.
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