BOATENG v. GYAMFUAA

JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLUNGE J.

In this case the plaintiff is claiming against the defendant ownership and recovery of possession of the personal effects of one late Private Hayford Boateng and general damages for trespass to these personal effects.

The defendant resisted the claim by contending that as the lawful wife of the Late Private Hayford Boateng and according to the existing law governing the disposal of service estate of servicemen who died intestate in Ghana, she is the person entitled to the ownership of the personal effects of her late husband.

This case appears to fall within a very narrow compass and involves the construction and applicability of section 5 of the Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act, 1964 (Act 234). The facts which are wholly agreed are these: The plaintiff is the customary successor and administrator of the estate of one Private Hayford Boateng formerly of the 2BN, Takoradi and who died intestate in February 1977. At the time of his death the said late Private Boateng was a serviceman. The defendant was the wife of the said late Private Hayford Boateng with whom she had two issues, all minors.

After the death of the said Private Hayford Boateng, the Army authorities checked his personal effects, took them over and later handed them over to the defendant in accordance with the Army regulations. The plaintiff on the other hand contended that she in her capacity as customary successor and administrator of the intestate estate of her deceased brother Private Hayford Boateng, is the one entitled to the ownership and possession of the said personal effects.

The plaintiff, however, later amended her claim as regards her capacity by substituting the following: "Ownership and recovery of possession of the late Private Hayford Boateng's service estate in her capacity as a nominee and in her capacity as a representative of the other family nominee of the late Private Hayford Boateng of 2BN, Takoradi." The plaintiff therefore commenced this present action for a determination as to whether she or the defendant is the proper person to be entitled to the service estate of the late Private Hayford Boateng.

Now the evidence of the plaintiff and her only witness that on the death intestate of the said Private Hayford Boateng, she, the plaintiff, was appointed the customary successor and administrator of the estate [p.549] of her deceased brother was not challenged and, indeed, the defendant did not dispute this fact. The plaintiff has t