AMPONSAH AND OTHERS v. BUDU
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AMUA-SEKYI
- AIKINS
- EDWARD WIREDU J.J.S.C
- AMPIAH
- AMUAH JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Customary Law
- Inheritance Law
- Property Law
- Intestate Succession
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that the properties in dispute are family properties and not self-acquired by the deceased daughters. The children of the daughters of Owusu are not members of his family for purposes of inheritance. The Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 111) does not apply to these family properties.
UDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.
The brothers, Kwesi Donkor and Kofi Wusu (Owusu), now deceased, were Guans. They hailed from Abiriw in Akuapim. Succession to their estate is patrilineal. It was the case for the plaintiff, Ama Amponsah, and those she represents, that Owusu, who died in or about 1953, was the owner of the properties listed in the statement of claim; that of the defendant, Kwadwo Budu, and he represents, was that the properties was acquired by Kwesi Donkor. The defendant further alleged that since the death of the two [p.293] brothers the properties have been shared among members of their family and that portions have been given to the plaintiff and those she represents. Although the sharing was denied by the plaintiff, the evidence suggests that at the time of the commencement of the suit, part of the properties were in the hands of the plaintiff and part in the hands of the defendant.
The defendant is a son of Donkor. His position in the family to which the two deceased brothers belonged was not in dispute. The plaintiff and those she represents are children of the three daughters, now deceased, of Owusu who left no son. It was the case for the plaintiffs that on his death intestate the self-acquired properties of Owusu devolved on his three daughters and that upon the death of those daughters the properties had devolved upon them. In the High Court, Wutoh J. upheld this contention and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed his decision: (see Budu v. Amponsah [1989-90] 1 G.L.R. 150, C.A). Put simply, the question is whether the children of the daughters of Owusu are members of his family for purposes of inheritance. Clearly, they are not, being children of females.
As understood in our law, the family is a group of persons tracing their ancestry through either males or females from a common male or female ancestor. Where the ancestry is traced through males from a common male ancestor the family is said to be patrilineal; where it is traced through females from a common female ancestor, it is matrilineal.
It is usual to draw a distinction between the immediate and wider family. In a patrilineal family, a person's immediate family consists of his father, his brothers and sisters being the children of his father, and the children of his brothers; his wider family consists of his immediate family and the immediate families of all those who trace their ancestry through males from the common male anc