JOSEPH ADDO- YOBO vs SAMUEL K. OKINE & ANOR

INTRODUCTION

[1] I wish to begin this judgment by quoting Ecclesiastes 2:21-23 which says “For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving which he labours under the sun? All his days, his work is pain and grief, even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless”.

[2] The protagonist around whose property this case revolves is Stephen Otopa AddoYobo. He was a merchant. He died testate in February 2006. He was a wealthy man by Ghanaian standards as per the properties devised and or bequeathed in his last Will. The Plaintiff is one of the Executors of his last will dated 17th March 1989.

[3] The property in dispute is captured in paragraph 7 of the last Will and Testament of Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo. He devised and gave the house in dispute, which was house number B.106/24 at Tesano/Abeka-Accra now known as 53 Cliff Road, Tesano-Accra and other two houses to Kwabena Yobo alias Joe Addo-Yobo, Kwasi Oteng alias Dr. C. AddoYobo and Yaw Aye alias Dr. Festus Addo-Yobo.

[4] The High Court granted probate to the Will of the late Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo on 14th September 2006. The property in dispute which was devised in the Will of Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo later came into possession of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff contends that the 1st Defendant later started laying adverse claim to the house.

[5] He therefore mounted this action against the Defendants in his capacity as an Executor and beneficiary of the last Will of Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo for the following reliefs:

1.A declaration that house number 53 Cliff Road, Tesano-Accra is part of the estate of Stephen Otopa Addo-Yobo.

2.Ejection of the 2nd Defendant from the said outhouse.

3.Recovery of possession of the outhouse.

4.An order directed at 1st Defendant to refund all rents he has collected from 2nd Defendant from the inception of the tenancy agreement to Plaintiff.

5.Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their privies and all who claim through them from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of the property.

6.Costs including legal fees for Plaintiff's counsel.

[6] The Defendants resisted the action by filing their appearance on 31st October 2024. They filed an amended Statement of Defence and coun