AMPONSAH v. KWATIA

Sowah J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 16 December 1974, we dismissed this appeal but reserved our reasons as we were unable to support the reasoning of the learned judge having regard to the evidence.

The plaintiff was the acknowledged successor to a parcel of land with a house thereon, which had been acquired by his great granduncle by name Odame. The evidence shows that other persons, namely, the late Benin and the late Asa Kofi had succeeded to this estate before him.

The defendant, the son of one of the male children of Odame, his sisters and brothers occupied the greater portion of the house in dispute. They are not members of the Odame family, they being the progeny of a male child. Thus in strict Akan custom they were living in the house at the pleasure of the successor and of the plaintiff's family. The house in dispute was not the self-acquired property of their father; if it were, they would be entitled to reside therein subject to good behaviour.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff laid a complaint to the Krontihene, Nana Baffour Ansah II, that members of his family had not adequate and sufficient accommodation in the house and therefore the defendant should remove the kitchens they had in the house to enable him put up more rooms to accommodate other members of the family. Both parties appeared before the Krontihene and his elders and a decision was arrived at that the defendant should remove the kitchens. The Krontihene's evidence was that the parties were satisfied or appeared to be so. However, the defendant and the immediate members of his own family left the house and went to live in their own family house. Thereupon the plaintiff began a renovation of the rooms vacated by them. The action was instituted because the defendant was interfering with and obstructing the renovation.

We are of the view that the defendant not being a member of the plaintiff's family had only a licence to live in the house and at the pleasure of the family and that when he vacated those rooms the successor was entitled as of right to re-enter and to re-take possession thereof. Title to the property is in him.

We neither share the learned judge's views that the arbitration was not binding on the plaintiff nor in the context of this case that "except with the consent and approval of the successor and principal members of the plaintiff's family, no arbitration can be validly entered upon and no disposition of the family property can be valid."

[