KWASI BUADU PER KWAME MANU v. YAA SAAH
1948
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Spooner, Senior District Commissioner
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Probate and Succession
- Equity and Trusts
1948
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Senior District Commissioner Spooner addressed a dispute involving Yaa Saah’s entitlement to an equitable share of a deceased man’s farms and proceeds based on caregiving during his illness. The court clarified that the case was not a succession matter, noting that Buadu was universally recognized as the rightful successor, which confirmed the "A" Court’s jurisdiction. Spooner criticized the "A" Court, which on appeal from the "B" Court had reversed a factual finding without hearing further evidence, namely that Yaa Saah had not assisted in making the farms. He emphasized that any claim by Yaa Saah arises from caregiving, and both lower courts agreed native custom allows consideration for such care from the deceased’s property. Finding no basis to increase her share, the appeal was allowed, the "B" Court’s judgment restored, and costs awarded to the appellant.
Judgment:
I have considered whether or not this is a " succession" case. After reading the record I have reached the conclusion that the issue is whether or not Yaa Saah should in equity receive a share of the farms and of the proceeds of the farms, because she looked after the dead man when he was sick. This is not a matter of succession, Buadu is recognised by all as the correct one to succeed and it follows that the "A" Court had jurisdiction.
The "A" which heard the appeal from the "B" Court listened to no further evidence yet they reversed a finding of the " B " Court on a point of fact. In my view the "B" Court view that Yaa Saah could not prove that she assisted in the making of the farm must stand.
It follows then that any claim she may have would arise out of the fact that when the dead man was ill she looked after him. Both Courts agree that native custom allows that she should receive consideration for this from the dead man's property.
As already stated the "A" Court should not in my opinion have decided that Yaa Saa had any claim for having helped make the farm.
It follows that there was no basis upon which they should nave increased her share.
The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the "B" Court restored. Costs to Appellant.