ANDREWS v. HAYFORD

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.A.

The land in dispute is situated at Tantri Road, Cape Coast. It formed part of a larger area bought by one Kwamina Prah (deceased). Kwamina Prah built a house on a portion of the said land. It is the undeveloped portion which has been the subject-matter of the present dispute. The learned trial circuit judge, Cape Coast, in a considered judgment found that Kwamina Prah died intestate and was survived by only two uterine brothers - Kojo Ackun and Kweku Dwenin. The late Kwamina Prah left no mother and no sister or maternal nephews or nieces. As a matter of fact it was found that on the death of Prah only these two uterine brothers, Ackun and Dwenin constituted members of Prah's immediate Twidan family.

[p.216]

Kojo Ackun who was the senior of the two brothers was appointed Prah's customary successor and he took charge and control of the house and the land in dispute. During his lifetime, Kojo Ackun as a successor and with the consent and concurrence of his only brother, Dwenin, sold the disputed land to the respondent. The sale took place in 1952 and was reduced into writing. A properly prepared indenture was executed by all concerned and registered in the Deeds Registry as No. 1153/1952. It was tendered at the trial as exhibit A. It should be observed that sometime after the sale Dwenin died. That is, Dwenin predeceased Kojo Ackun. It is also significant to note that nobody from the wider Twidan family objected to the sale.

Years after the death of Kojo Ackun and nineteen years after the said sale, the appellant who was a distant and remote relative of the late Kwamina Prah, Ackun and Dwenin, disputed the respondent's right to the land, contending that the sale to the respondent by the late Kojo Ackun was null and void on the ground that Ackun sold the land without the consent of the wider Twidan family of Cape Coast. The respondent therefore sued the appellant, among other things for a declaration of title. The learned trial circuit judge granted the respondent the relief she sought.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to this court. Several grounds of appeal were filed. But learned counsel for the appellant argued only one of them, namely the learned trial judge erred in law by holding that the immediate family could dispose of the family property without reference to and obtaining the consent of the wider Twidan family of Cape Coast. Counsel contended that on the death intestate of Prah who originally