MADAM AKOSUA DUFIE AND KINGSLEY ADU-POKU MENSAH v. MADAM AMMA FOSUA AND KOFI ADU POKU

J U D G M E N T

WOOD (MRS), CJ. :

I agree with the opinions to be delivered by my learned brothers Atuguba, Ansah and Dotse JJSC and my learned sister Sophia Adinyira JSC. I have nothing useful to add.

G. T. WOOD (MRS)

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

ATUGUBA, JSC:

The surviving 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent together with her late sister who was then the 1st Plaintiff got locked up with the defendants appellants/appellants in an estate dispute relating to the ownership of a house and two cocoa farms. Whilst the plaintiff claims that these are family properties the defendants claim they are all self-acquired properties of their late father and husband respectively.

There are concurrent findings of fact on these matters in the High Court and Court of Appeal in favour of the plaintiff.

It is trite law that an appellate court is not entitled to reverse concurrent findings of fact unless there are, in effect, strong legal or factual reasons to the contrary.

It is also to be borne in mind that claims against the estate of a deceased person are to be viewed with caution and very cogent evidence is necessary to sustain the same.

The plaintiff’s case is that when he was about leaving the country for Britain he handed over to the defendants’ late father and husband respectively a document covering a piece of land which later by substitution, became the plot on which the disputed house stands. He also owned a store and a beer bar which he left in the care of the same person, i.e. the late Kwaku Poku. He later instructed his said late brother to sell the store and beer bar and construct a house for him on the said plot of land.

Ownership of the disputed house

The courts below came to the conclusion that the house was not financed only by the late Kwaku Poku.

One matter that did not receive critical attention by the courts below is the date of the construction of the house. The plaintiff is quite definite that the house was completed in June 1955 whereas exhibits 2 and 4 dated 9/5/1958 and 23/6/1958 being an undertaking by Kwaku Poku to develop the said land within 2 years and a receipt for payment for the preparation of a development permit in respect of the said land, tend to show otherwise. Also at p. 42 of the record between lines 1 to 4 the plaintiff admitted thus: “Yes I know that in the 1950s the colonial authorities insisted on strict compliance with building regulations. Yes without a development permit, you could not commence the development of any plot”. T