GODFRED AGYEDOWA BOADI & ORS vs KWAKU ADDO

ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:

The subject of this appeal is not of any wide ambit. Following a dispute over the properties of one Opanin Kwaku Boadi (the deceased), the disputants appeared before the Kadehene and his elders in what ended up as customary arbitral proceedings. Upon the announcement of a decision after hearing, the losing side sought to reverse same in the High Court. What transpired has culminated in this appeal.

The deceased, late of Kade died in 1962. To date, his acquisition of a number of properties in his lifetime has suffered no viable debate. He died intestate. As an Akan from a matrilineal system, the question about the status of those properties upon his death is readily answered in law which we shall state in due course.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Appellants/Respondents (herein Defendants) are some of his surviving children. The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent (herein Plaintiff) became his customary successor, the third in line. The deceased had originally been succeeded by his brother Kwadwo Danso (Abeam Danso) who was in turn succeeded by a female by name Kadewaa. The Plaintiff succeeded Kadewaa.

It appears from the evidence that the Defendants had demanded a portion of their father’s estate from the successors up to the Plaintiff, but had failed in the bid. They finally commenced the aforesaid proceedings against the Plaintiff before the Kadehene and his elders (the arbitral panel). It was at end of a full hearing including an inspection of the properties involved, that the arbitral panel gave the impugned award. For what is of essence here, the award resulted in some provision out of the estate of the deceased being made in the Defendants’ favour.

Challenging the decision, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs jointly and severally against the Defendants inclusive of the Kadehene as 4th Defendant:

1. A declaration that the alleged redistribution of the estate of Opanin Kwaku Boadi (deceased) on 6/8/99 is null and void.

2. An order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from further interfering in any manner whatsoever with the Plaintiff’s ownership possession and control of the said properties or any part thereof.

3. Damages for trespass

4. Refund of the sum of C 150,000 by the 4th Defendant with interest thereon.

5. Costs.

The Defendants resisted the Plaintiffs’ claim with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant