IN RE ARMAH (DECD.); ARMAH v. ARMAH

After Mr. Wallace Amako Cofie Armah’s death in December 1980, his son sought letters of administration in 1986. The widow filed a caveat, and the High Court directed that entitlement to the grant be resolved by writ. The litigation raised multiple issues: whether the estate comprised two houses or one, whether the principal property was jointly owned with the widow, which succession law applied to a death preceding PNDCL 111, and whether the deceased was an Ada man. On the evidence—including exhibits describing a second structure as an extension—the court found there was only one house and no joint ownership was proven, applying Majolagbe v. Larbi and Bentsi‑Enchill. Rejecting strict literalism and adopting a purposive approach to section 21(1), the court applied PNDCL 111. Recognizing the deceased’s Ada roots but prioritizing smooth administration and the parties’ interests amid deep acrimony, the court denied a grant to either litigant, dismissed both claim and counterclaim, and appointed the Administrator‑General to administer the estate under PNDCL 111.