AFUA MANSA v. KWAME

The plaintiff is residence of Katakyiase. The plaintiff filed her writ on 02/11/2022 seeking

the following reliefs:

a. Declaration that all that land sharing boundaries with Mr. Fobi, Sister Akyiaama and

the street leading to the Bethel Methodist Church, Nyankumasi Ahenkro with the

house thereon is the personally acquired property of plaintiff’s late husband,

Kwabena Tawiah of which he died intestate.

b. Declaration that the above estate remain a subject of joint inheritance of all the legal

heirs of the deceased including, plaintiff, her two children begotten with the

deceased and the defendant and that, the defendant cannot develop any portion for

his personal or exclusive use so long as same has not been customarily or legally

conveyed to him.

c. An order of this honorable Court compelling the defendant to pull down the said

building and remove all the said blocks from the land.

When the case was called the defendant was absent. Upon an order, the defendant

was served with Writ of Sermons and a hearing notice on the 5th November, 2022.

Again on the 16th December 2022 another hearing notice was dully served on the

defendant on 16th January, 2023. On the basis of the above, the Court took the

position that the defendant had been duly served but failed to appear in Court. This

means that the Court did not breach rules of NATURAL JUSTICES and the District

Court rules 2009 (CI 59).

In the light of the above the Court proceeded to look at order 25 R 1 (2) (A). The rule is to

effect that where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the magistrate may,

where the plaintiff attends and defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counter claim if any

and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim. In the instant case the plaintiff was present but

the defendant was absent. There was no counter claim.

The plaintiff’s case is that she lives at Abura Katakyise. That the defendant is the plaintiff’s

step son. According to the plaintiff she got married to Mr. Tawiah Kwabena Krampa and

had two children with him but the husband having had Akosua Asantewaa Krampa and

Nana Dompre Krampa had the defendant with another woman outside their marriage.

What it means is that, the plaintiff concedes to the fact that the deceased husband had three

children. The plaintiff’s assertion that the family of the deceased husband rejected the

defendant is neither here nor there. Though the plaintiff asserted that the defendant was

rejected by his f