2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal arises from a familial property dispute in Koforidua involving James Okyere, his siblings (the plaintiffs), and his former wife, the 2nd defendant (Florence Darko/Florence Darko Okyere). Opanyin Kwaku Okyere customarily gifted the property in 1975 to his second wife, Amma Mansah, and her children, including James. Despite this, James registered the property in his name, mortgaged it to HFC Bank for his company, and later purported to settle the outhouse and adjoining land on his then wife in divorce proceedings. The plaintiffs had long been in possession and protested 2nd defendant’s commercial use; she built a restaurant with siblings’ consent, later converting it to stores without consent. The High Court ruled for the plaintiffs, set aside the divorce transfer, but reserved five stores to 2nd defendant. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal set aside the reservation. The 2nd defendant appealed further, challenging capacity and weight-of-evidence. The Supreme Court, applying re-hearing standards, upheld capacity, treated 2nd defendant as a licensee who forfeited the premises by adverse claim, applied nemo dat, and affirmed the Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal.
PROF. MENSA-BONSU JSC:
This is an appeal from judgment of Court of Appeal dated 10th June 2020 which set aside orders made by the High Court in Koforidua.
Facts and background This case has arisen because a man who gifted landed property to his wife and children by her, purported to gift that property again to one of the children a decade later.
The new donee (1st defendant) then registered the property in his name only, raised a loan by way of mortgage on it, and purported to settle it on his ex-wife as part of a divorce settlement.
The other siblings have mounted a protest, contending that their late father, Opanyin Kwaku Okyere, customarily gifted the subject-matter of dispute to his children (the plaintiffs and 1st defendant) and their mother.
This, the father did on 26th January 1975, at a large meeting called for the purpose.
The plaintiffs have since been in possession of the property.
In consequence of the plaintiffs and defendants switching roles in the 1st and 2nd appellate courts the original designations of plaintiffs and 1st and 2nd defendants will be maintained as appropriate, to avoid confusion.
The plaintiffs complain that the 1st defendant made an adverse claim to the outhouse of the property, by insisting that their father granted the said outhouse solely to him.
Although the 1st defendant admitted the customary gift made by their father in January 1975 was to them all, he denied that the subject matter of the dispute was part of that gift.
He claimed that the outhouse and adjoining land was gifted to him solely by their late father by custom sometime in 1975, and same documented by way of Deed of Gift in 1986. Further that he transacted on the said property without any form of protest from the plaintiffs.
The 2nd defendant his now ex-wife, developed a portion of the property, while they were still married, into a restaurant, on his admission, with the consent of his other siblings, the plaintiffs herein.
The 1st defendant admitted that he made a gift of the said outhouse and its adjoining land to the 2nd defendant and the children of their marriage, as part of settlement terms in a divorce suit in 2009. On her part, the 2nd defendant contested the plaintiffs’ claim that their father gifted the property to them in the manner admitted by the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs.
The 2nd defendant further contended that 1st defendant granted to her, and the children of the marriage, the subject matter of the dispute as part of the