MADAM ROSEMARY AIDOO VS MRS. SOPHIA AMOA
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ROSETTA SOPHIA BERNASKO ESSAH JA (PRESIDING)
- NOVISI ARYENE JA
- JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE JA
Areas of Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2024
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a dispute about whether the plaintiff is entitled to the estate of the late Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua. The trial court ruled that a customary arbitration had settled the matter, but on appeal, the higher court found that the arbitration did not meet the stringent requirements for validity. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment, stating that the burden of proof was improperly placed on the plaintiff and the essential elements of a valid customary arbitration were not met. The case is remitted to the Circuit Court for a hearing on its merits.
NOVISI ARYENE JA:
ANTECEDENTS
Following a misunderstanding between the parties as to whether or not plaintiff is entitled to benefit from the estate of the late Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua, defendant approached Nana Kwabena Obo II, also known as Nana Toku, the Akyeamehene of Apinto Stool of Tarkwa, (who testified at the trial as DW 1) to settle the dispute, and the parties responded to his invitation with witnesses.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Plaintiff contends that what transpired at Nana Toku’s residence was nothing short of an attempt to settle a family feud and that it was not customary arbitration as defendant would want the court to believe. Plaintiff contends that contrary to the requirements of a valid customary arbitration, the parties did not pay arbitration fees; Nana Toku did not fully record what transpired at the meeting and the parties also testified in the presence of their witnesses. Plaintiff further contended that the deliberations were inconclusive because defendant declared that she (plaintiff) was not the biological daughter of the deceased and that the misunderstanding which ensued brought the proceedings to an abrupt end.
Plaintiff says to protect her interest in the disputed property, she is in court seeking the following reliefs against defendant:
i. A declaration that the plaintiff is a child of the late Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua deceased, of Popoase Bretua Family of Awudua
ii. Declaration that as a child of the late Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua, she plaintiff is an equal beneficiary of the estate of the deceased including the building described as House Number NT 84, Plot 176, Sector 3, New layout, Tarkwa just as the defendant.
iii. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by herself, her children, privies, assigns, agents, successors in title an all those claiming through her from ejecting the plaintiff with her children from H/No. NT 84, aforesaid.
iv. An order restraining defendant by herself, her children, privies, assigns, agents, successors in title from denying that the plaintiff is a child of Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua, deceased.
v. Any other equitable relief
DEFENDANT’S CASE
Defendant’s case as can be gleaned from her statement of defence and counterclaim is that, plaintiff is the niece of her mother, the late Obaapanyin Abena Ayensua, and that at the age of eight years, she was brought to live with her mother to attend school. Defendant averred that the disputed house was gifted to her (defendant) by her biol