ANNOBIL v. ANNOBIL

JUDGEMENT OF OWUSU J.

This is an application for the appointment of receiver and manager to collect and pay the rents into court. In effect the application is for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from further management of the house in dispute.

The claim is against the defendant for:

"(a) A declaration of her title for herself and as a trustee of her children to house No. 16/4, Kojo Baidoo, Winneba.

(b) Perpetual injunction against the defendant members of his family their servants, etc. from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the said property.”

In her affidavit, the applicant deposed, inter alia, particularly in paragraphs (2), (6) and (7) that:

"(a) the building, subject-matter of the dispute, is owned partly by herself and partly by her deceased husband who gave his share as a gift to his children before his death;

(b) by virtue of letters of administration granted to the defendant, he collected and made use of the deceased's entitlement under the Social Security Scheme for which her children had been named as beneficiaries, and it was with extreme difficulty that the money was refunded;

(c) consequently, if he continues to take the rent, he will be unable to refund it when after hearing of the case she is adjudged owner of the house and entitled to the rents accruing therefrom."

The defendant also contends, inter alia, in his affidavit that:

"(a) On completion of the building, the subject-matter of the suit, the deceased Kwesi Boye, invited many people including members of his own family and those of the plaintiff’s family to observe the opening of the said building.

(b) On that day the plaintiff and her children made a present of a cloth, a pair of sandals, sheep and whisky to their deceased husband and father.

(c) There and then, their said deceased husband and father, Kwesi Boye, also returned the compliment by making a gift of the sum of £G25 (N¢50.00) to the plaintiff and her children [p.1082] through his (the deceased's) own head of family, Kofi Adeko, in the presence of the guests.

(d) The gift by the plaintiff and her children was nothing more than 'well done' after the deceased had completed the building, and the deceased’s own reciprocal gift was no more than 'thank you' for appreciating his effort.”

In the absence of evidence to the contrary the presentation of the cloth, sandals, sheep and whisky to the deceased husband supports the contention that a customary gift of at least part of the house w