AMISSAH-ABADOO v. DANIELS AND OTHERS
1979
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OSEI-HWERE J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Family Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
1979
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Osei‑Hwere J. addressed a preliminary point of law in a suit for possession of House No. G.8/2, Tantri Lane, Cape Coast, brought by the head of the Abadoo family against John Ekem Abadoo and others. Interpreting Edward Wiredu J.’s earlier decision in Amissah‑Abadoo v. Abadoo, the court read the orders as vesting title in the defined donee family (of the land) while granting the widow and children an unqualified possessory life interest in the self‑acquired house, which takes precedence over the family’s title. Distinguishing ratio from obiter, the court regarded any ‘good behaviour’ limitation from Amponsah v. Kwatia as inapplicable to self‑acquired houses and anchored the children’s possessory rights in Halmond v. Daniel. Because seeking possession simpliciter to reallocate rooms contradicts those rights, the plaintiff is estopped. The claim for possession was dismissed, and judgment entered for the defendants with costs.
JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.
By the endorsement on his writ the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for, "possession of house No. G. 8/2, Tantri Lane, Cape Coast, property of the plaintiff and his family which the defendants have taken possession of against the interest of the plaintiff." The statement of claim subsequently filed by the plaintiff ran:
"(1) By a judgment dated 12 November 1973, house No. G 8/2, Tantri Lane, was adjudged the property of the Abadoo family of which the plaintiff is the present head.
(2) The said house consists of three floors with an annexe in which the widow of the late lawyer Abadoo carried on her occupation as a seamstress.
(3) An action instituted by the plaintiff to enforce his right to apportion accommodation in the house as against the widow and members of the plaintiff's family needing accommodation abated with the death of the widow.
(4) The plaintiff had reason to believe that after the final funeral rites of the widow the fourth defendant would surrender the keys of the house to the plaintiff who would then have allocated accommodation to the fourth defendant if he intended to remain in the house instead of living in the house given to his late mother by his late father, who knew the position of the house in dispute.
(5) Instead, the fourth defendant is packing the house with members of his mother's family including the first, second, and third defendants who have no right to live therein.
(6) On the day when a thanksgiving service was held for his late mother, the fourth defendant outrageously and in a frantic manner expelled the plaintiff's niece from the house and threatened to assault her if she did not leave.
(7) On the same day, the defendants behaved in a riotous manner in the house to the annoyance of neighbours; they have also expressed an avowed aim of destroying the house, which in any case is in need of interior as well as exterior repairs, urgently: rates are outstanding.
(8) There are members of the plaintiff's family needing accommodation; the fourth defendant cannot maintain the house. Wherefore plaintiff claims as per his summons."
The defendants in their turn filed the following defence:
"(1) Save that the fourth defendant admits that in November 1973 judgment was given in respect of the said property, he says that the interpretation put on it by the plaintiff is wide off the mark.
[p.512]
(2) The fourth defendant denies that he is packing the house with members of his family. H