MARY TSOTSO LARYEA & 3 ORS. v. AMARKAI LARYEA
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, J.A.
- SOWAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The initial ruling by the High Court conferred ownership of House No. D453/3 Arena, Accra, on all surviving children of the late Daniel Maxwell Laryea and restrained the defendant from claiming sole ownership. The defendant appealed, arguing the property was gifted to him and his brothers by their father via a Deed of Gift. On appeal, it was found that the documentary evidence (the Deed of Gift) should prevail over oral testimony, and the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims against this document. Thus, the appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the defendant was declared the legal and beneficial owner of the property, with an order for the plaintiffs' ejection.
JUDGMENT
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 20-10-2011, the High Court, Accra, in its judgment held among other things as follows:
“In conclusion I enter judgment for the plaintiff for relief (a) endorsed on their writ of summons and confer ownership of House No. D453/3 Arena, Accra on all the surviving children of the late Daniel Maxwell Laryea. The defenda nt is further restrained from ejecting the plaintiffs from the said house.
On the evidence, I am unable to declare the defendant sole legal and beneficial owner of the property because the gift inter vivos on which he relied was not conclusively proved.
Secondly, his senior brothers before him conducted the management of the property to the benefit of all the children. Thirdly, the defendant by his own evidence recognized the beneficial interest of the plaintiffs in the property. Defendant also admitted that the father’s signature on Exhibit 2 is not his normal signature explaining that it is on account of some 40 years difference. Above all, the court has found the male siblings to have waived their rights to exclusive ownership if any. Since the GH¢2,000 paid to each plaintiff were monies received from the contractor to enable him redevelop the property and not normal rents from sitting tenants the defendant is likely to be called upon to refund same following the plaintiffs’ failure to relocate to permit the contractor to carry on his work. Accordingly, it would be unfair to permit the plaintiffs to keep those monies and thereby burden the defendant to solely shoulder the burden of a refund.
I will therefore order the defendant to recover from the plaintiffs the following:
i. GH¢2,500 each from 1st, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs
ii. GH¢2,000 each from 2nd and 4th plaintiffs.
In addition, defendant is to recover from 1st plaintiff 150 pieces of cement blocks or the current value thereof. These refunds to the defendant must be made within 40 days from today”.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, Accra, the defendant has mounted this appeal on the following grounds:
a. The trial Judge erred in conferring ownership of H/No. D 453/3 Arena, Accra on all surviving children of the late Daniel Maxwell Laryea.
b. That the trial Judge erred in holding that, the male children waived their right to the property.
c. The part of the judgment complained of is against the weight of the evidence.
d. Further or additional grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.
Before going into