AMANKWAH & ORs v NSIAH

This is an appeal from the decision of the Kumasi Circuit Court over the disputed ownership of a house numbered as Plot 8, Block 2, situated at Manhyia in Kumasi.

The facts which gave rise to the dispute were as follows: One Opanin Kwadwo Oppong was the person who built the house. That was not disputed by the respondent, save that she claimed to have given to the late Oppong all the money he spent to build it. When the house was completed in 1961, he took occupation of it with his wives and childrACen together with his sister who is the respondent in this appeal. Two years after their occupation of the house, the respondent vacated it. According to some of the witnesses who testified for the appellants, Oppong ejected her for misbehaviour. According to the respondent, however, she left the house on her own accord because the wives of Oppong were worrying her during her stay in the house and she felt she had to leave in order to allow her brother to live there in peace with his wives.

Oppong stayed in the house over 20 years till he died in 1985. After his death, the respondent instituted a consolidated action in the circuit court, initially asking for ejectment from the house of all the appellants who are the wives and children of the late Oppong. The circuit court gave judgment for her. It was against that judgment that the wives and children who shall hereafter be referred to as the appellants appealed to this court.

In arguing the appeal, E D Kom who appeared for the appellants contended that the facts of this were on all fours with the Supreme Court case of Kwame v Serwah, [1993-94] 1 GLR 429, SC. He therefore submitted that the principles enunciated therein should be applicable to this case. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff bought and owned a piece of land in Kumasi but it was the defendant's father who built on it. It was held, inter alia, that:

(1) Kumasi lands are governed by English law and the rules on limitation of actions and estoppel applied to actions on Kumasi lands (2) Ownership of the house should be proved distinctly from ownership of the land on which it was situated and further that the ownership of the land and house could be decreed in favour of different people. (3) Proof of ownership of the house should be by inter alia evidence of actual construction and over acts of ownership after its completion.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal as appearing in the notice papers were as follows:

"(a) The judg