JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
The plaintiffs, all petty traders, are surviving children of the late Ato Kwamina Essuman of house No. 70/8, Third Street, Sekondi. The defendant is the customary successor of the said Ato Kwamina Essuman (deceased). House No. 70/8, Third Street, Sekondi and five others were built on lands not family property by the plaintiffs' said father and by his own exertions, unaided by the members of his family.
That the late Ato Kwamina Essuman in his lifetime was ebulliently well-to-do is borne out by the numerous houses which he died possessed of. But true to the inexorable ironies of fate, this prosperous man did not live longer to enjoy the fruits of his labours. Upon his death, his uterine nephew, the defendant herein, was appointed his customary successor. The latter now lives with the plaintiffs in one of the houses, namely house No. 70/8, Third Street, Sekondi. The remaining buildings are: one at Nkroful junction near Ketan, one at Ekuase near Sekondi, three at Essaman, also near Sekondi. All the five latter houses have been let out to tenants by the customary successor.
The plaintiffs by this suit claim for:
(a) A declaration that as children of the late Ato Kwamina Essuman they have a life interest in all the self-acquired properties of their father.
(b) A declaration that the said life interest includes an interest or share in the income accruing from the rents from the said self-acquired houses of their father.
(c) That the court determine the nature or extent of such interest or share because, as they say, their late father's family have denied the existence of any such interest and have failed, despite repeated demands, to determine their interest.
(d) An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiffs the interest so determined with effect from 1974 to the date of judgment.
[p.445]
The defendant avers that he has permitted a brother of the plaintiffs to occupy two rooms in house No. 70/8 and another brother to stay in one of the houses at Essaman. His counsel contends that the plaintiffs' interest in the properties does not go beyond their right to reside in the house of their late father subject to good behaviour and that they are not entitled to a share in the rents accruing from the houses let out to tenants. The issue in the case resolved itself ultimately to one of law as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the rents accruing from the houses.
As usual, the point of departure in any discussion of
