ADWOA ACHIAA & 1 ORS v. ADANSE PIPIM MANU
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding), JA
- Gertrude Torkornoo, (Mrs.), JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute over a house claimed as family property by the plaintiff and as individually-owned by descendants by the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants' appeal was dismissed by the appellate court, which held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the house had been partitioned or shared in a way that changed its family character. The court also noted procedural errors made by the defendants in their appeal.
AYEBI, JA 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Kumasi Circuit Court dated 6th May, 2013.
In the suit at the trial court, the plaintiff/respondent claimed against the defendants/appellants jointly and severally the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that House No.
16, Block B, Tanoso is a family property of Ekouna of Apatrapa.
2. Recovery of possession of the chamber and hall in H/No.
Plot 16, Block B, Tanoso-Kumasi, occupied by the defendants.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their successors and assigns from interfering with the said chamber and hall in the said house.
4. Costs.
The defendants/appellants on their part in their statement of defence counter-claimed for:
a. A declaration that House No.16 Block B is not a family property.
b. Perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, their successful (sic) and assigns from interfering with the said chamber and hall in the said house.
c. A declaration of the title of cocoa farm at Pokuase in the Ashanti Region which shares boundaries with following people: Agya Fagyare, Akwasi Donkor, Kwadwo Asumeng all of Pokuase.
d. Order of accounts by the plaintiff from the cocoa farm at Pokuase.
e. Cost.
2. The plaintiff/respondent prosecuted the case through Agya Atta Kwesi his lawful attorney.
He described the defendants/appellants as a wife and a son of Kwadwo Asumang, deceased.
His case is that the house in dispute is a family property and the rooms have never been shared.
The case of the defendants on the other hand is that the rooms in the house have been shared by the four siblings who originally acquired it and as at now, the children of the siblings of Kwadwo Asumang are occupying their father’s rooms without let or hindrance.
3. Tracing the history of the house, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that Opanin Kwadwo Assumang was the husband of Abena Dufie.
Opanin Kwadwo Assumang gave a cocoa farm to his wife Abena Dufie.
Abena Dufie in turn gave the cocoa farm to her children namely Kofi Adomako, Abena Nyamekye, Abena Bio, Kwadwo Assumang (defendants’ husband/father) and Kwame Tweneboah.
Abena Dufie advised her children that because they were not educated, they should use the proceeds from the farm to build a house for their future generations.
4. The children according to the attorney, heeded the advice of their mother and put up the house in dispute.
Kofi Adomako as the eldest then, managed and controlled the house on behalf of the family.
At the ti