2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This is a Court of Appeal decision in Ghana, authored by Justice Samuel K.A. Asiedu, affirming a High Court judgment in favor of siblings David Okae (1st Plaintiff) and his sister (2nd Plaintiff) against their sister, Comfort Ansah (Defendant/Appellant). Two Kumasi houses—Plot No. 12 Block XXIII, Amakom Extension, and Plot No. 10 Block B, Asokwa Residential Area—were acquired by their late mother, Agnes Tema (also referenced as Temaa/Timah), in the plaintiffs’ names. Comfort claimed these properties and specified cocoa farms were family property forming part of Agnes’s estate and that she held them by succession. The appeal challenged the trial court’s findings as against the weight of evidence and urged application of resulting trust rather than advancement. The Court held that in Ghana, advancement applies where a parent acquires property in a child’s name, and it expressly recognizes mothers’ equal capacity to advance, consistent with Article 18 and the Children’s Act. It rejected arguments based on non-registration and infancy, found subsequent possession did not rebut advancement or estop the plaintiffs, upheld David Okae’s customary succession to Emmanuel Afari Mintah, dismissed the appeal, affirmed the judgment, and awarded costs.
ASIEDU, JA.
My lords, on the 20th day of October 2014, the Plaintiffs/Respondents filed a suit against the Defendant/Appellant at the High Court, Kumasi. In the said action, the Plaintiffs claimed against the Defendant:
1. “A declaration of title to all that building known as Plot No. 12 Block XXIII, Amakom Extension, Kumasi and Plot Number Plot 10 Block B, Asokwa Residential Area, Asokwa, Kumasi are the properties (of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs) given to them as gifts by their late mother, Madam Agnes Temaa and do not form part of her estate.
2. Recovery of possession of the said buildings by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs.
3. (a) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, servants, workmen and/or privies from dealing with the said properties or in any way interfering with the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs’ possession of their buildings
(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, her agents, servants, workmen and/or privies from collecting cocoa proceeds from the caretakers or in any other way interfering with the cocoa farms and other properties the 1st Plaintiff inherited from his grandfather, the late Emmanuel Afari Minta as his customary successor.
4. Account to the 1st Plaintiff for any rent she has collected from cocoa farms 1st Plaintiff inherited as the customary successor to the late Emmanuel Afari Minta.”
After entering appearance, the Defendant filed a statement of defence in which she counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs for:
a. “A declaration that properties Numbered Plot 12, Block XXIII, New Amakom and Property Numbered Plot 10 Block B Asokwa Kumasi are the Defendant’s family property and she is the owner by succession.
b. A declaration that all the cocoa farms situate at Bomah, Subriso and Kukuom are family properties of the Defendant and she is the owner by succession.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiffs, their representatives, assigns, workmen and persons claiming through them, etc. from dealing with any of the disputed properties as their own.”
After the trial, the High Court dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim and entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs on their claims against the Defendant on the 19th day of February 2020. The Defendant says she is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court; therefore, on the 3rd day of March 2020, the Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to this court for “an order setting aside the judgment of the court below dated 19th day of February 2020 and in r