MARGARET DANKWA VS JACINTA A.K.A JACINTA YEBOAH & 1 OR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Probate and Succession
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
In the High Court, Justice Eudora Christina Dadson adjudicated a dispute between Margaret Dankwa, widow of the late Frank Atakorah, and Jacinta (Jacinta Atakorah, formerly Jacinta Yeboah), regarding Jacinta’s status as Frank’s child and entitlement to his intestate estate. Margaret alleged Frank’s fertility issues and relied on a baptismal certificate naming Charles Yeboah as Jacinta’s father, seeking to exclude Jacinta from the estate and to resist sharing a Gbawe house. Jacinta counterclaimed and offered evidence of Frank’s public acknowledgment, surname change, family recognition, and inclusion in Frank’s obituary, and produced a Letters of Administration naming Margaret as widow and Jacinta as daughter. Applying Ghana’s Evidence Act, the Children’s Act, PNDCL 111, and estoppel, the court found Jacinta to be Frank’s biological child, held she is entitled to a share, dismissed Margaret’s claims, and awarded nominal costs.
[1] Introduction The issues raised by this case is centered on issues relating to the matters unfolding after the death of a patriarch the late Frank Atakorah in the year 2011. This brings to mind the words of Thomas Paine, when he stated as follows in 1796: “Nothing they say, is more certain than death, nothing more uncertain than the dying1. ”WCE Daniels in his seminal book the Law of Family relations in Ghana at page 209 stated: “Parentage is an important institution in any modern society.
Lack of knowledge of the membership of one’s parent will therefore constitute a severe drawback to the accurate placing of such individual in his family. ”The Plaintiff the surviving spouse of the late Frank Atakorah has instituted this action to seek a declaration that the 1st Defendant is not the biological child of the late Frank Atakorah and therefore not a beneficiary of his estate.
The Plaintiff’s position is sharply contended by the 1st Defendant that she is a biological child of the deceased and therefore a beneficiary of his estate.
Justice Kweku T Ackaah-Boafo J (as he then was) faced with a similar case, a claim against a dead person, stated succinctly in the case of Grace Adu & 1 other vs Martin Anaglate& 2 Others, Suit No: BFA 103/2009, 5th April 2009 as follows: “In proceeding to evaluate the nature of the evidence adduced at the trial I need to caution myself that this suit concerns Dr. Emmanuel Anaglate who is now deceased and is unavailable as a witness in terms of S. 116(e) (iii) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and therefore cannot appear to tell his side of the story as to whether he indeed married both Plaintiffs.
The settled rule of law is that the evidence involving a deceased person is always received and treated with extreme circumspection and suspicion.
The policy rationale is that the deceased, unlike the Biblical Lazarus, cannot come out of his grave to tell his side of the story, to assert any claim or disprove one.
Proof must therefore be strict and utterly convincing from the living witnesses.
Judges have been advised to look with suspicion when claims are made against deceased persons.
In the case of Kusi & Kusi vs. Bonsu [2010] SCGLR page 60 at page 73, 82-84 the Supreme Court stated the principle succinctly as follows: “…the claims the plaintiff family made against the deceased Asante in respect of the property, were all critical assertions against the deceased, in whose favour the presumption of ownership stood.
Thes