2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal concerns the estate of Andrew Ackah Blay. The appellants sought letters of administration, claiming eligibility as the deceased's customary wife and customary successor, but were opposed by the respondents. The High Court granted administration jointly to the first and second respondents and the second appellant, excluding the first appellant due to insufficient evidence of her marital status. The appellate court upheld this decision, finding no merit in the appellants' claims, emphasizing the court's discretion in such matters, and confirming the necessity for a competent court to resolve disputed property ownership.
J U D G M E N T:
LAWRENCE L. MENSAH, J.A.
This is an appeal by the Applicants/Appellants who will be referred to hereafter as Appellants against the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated 5th day of July 2018 in favour of the Respondents/Respondents who will be referred to as the Respondents.
This is an estate matter involving the estate of Andrew Ackah Blay (deceased) who passed into eternity on the 26th of October 2017. After his burial on 17th February 2018, the Appellants applied for letters of administration to administer his estate. The first Appellant claimed to be the customary and lawful surviving wife of the deceased, with the second Appellant as the customary successor. The Appellants’ application was on notice to the Respondents. The 1st Respondent filed a stiff affidavit in opposition to the application, and claimed some of the properties of the deceased listed in the inventory as her personal possessions.
Upon hearing the arguments of the parties, the court in its judgment on the 5th of July 2018 granted letters of administration jointly to the 1st Respondent Hannah Ackah Blay, the 2nd Respondent and eldest son of the deceased Emmanuel Ackah Blay, and Joseph K. A. Mochia the customary successor and the 2nd Appellant herein. The court refused to grant the administration to the 1st Appellant who claimed to be the customary wife aforesaid on the ground that she was not a surviving spouse.
The court in its judgment also declared, albeit with a caveat, that the 1st Respondent was the joint owner of some properties listed in the inventory as those of the deceased and annexed to the application a number of documents on both the matrimonial house and some vehicles. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants appealed to this court.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
The grounds of Appeal found at pages 111-112 of the record of appeal are:
1. The 1st Respondent/Respondent having made adverse claims to title of properties listed in the inventory as belonging to the deceased, cannot take Letters of Administration to administer the estate of the deceased.
2. The learned trial judge erred in excluding certain properties listed in the inventory, in the grant of the Letters of Administration.
3. The trial court erred in holding that the 1st Applicant/Appellant was not a spouse of the deceased and therefore not entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration.
4. The trial court further erred in declaring the 1st Respondent/Respondent as the surviving s