2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the ownership of a property acquired by Daniel Maxwell Laryea, who died in 1960, leaving behind five wives and sixteen children. The plaintiffs, his surviving female children, claimed common ownership against the defendant, his only surviving male child, who counterclaimed for sole ownership based on a deed of gift. The High Court ruled for the plaintiffs, but this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which found in favor of the defendant. The Supreme Court, however, reinstated the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds of laches and estoppel, thus granting common ownership to all surviving children.
JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
This case is about the ownership of House No. D453/3, Knutsford Avenue, Arena, Accra, which comprises a number of buildings. It was acquired by one Daniel Maxwell Laryea who died in Accra in 1960. He was married to five wives and had sixteen children. The plaintiffs/respondents/appellants are his surviving female children and the defendant/appellant/respondent is the only available surviving male child of the deceased. They shall be referred to in this judgment as plaintiffs and defendant respectively.
The plaintiffs by a writ of summons and an accompanying statement claim filed in the High Court, Accra on 15th September,2010 claimed against the defendant for an order conferring common ownership of the property in dispute on all the surviving children of the late Daniel Maxwell Laryea. The case of the plaintiffs in the High Court briefly stated was that shortly after the death of their father, the most seniour male child called Amar Laryea presented an unsigned deed of gift of the property in dispute purportedly made by their father for signature by elders of the family. In the said deed of gift their father gifted the house to only his four male children to the exclusion of the others. According to plaintiffs, they the other siblings challenged the genuineness of the deed so the elders rejected it. This caused misunderstanding among the children but in the course of time the elders of the family amicably settled the dispute by arbitration. The arbitration concluded on the note that all the children should inherit their father so the buildings were shared among all the children. The plaintiffs said they took their parts as owners and have possessed same for over forty years without any challenge from their male siblings until the defendant herein, who is the last of the male children, resurrected the issue of the deed of gift and claimed that the house belonged to him alone. This was after two of the older male children had died in 1994 and 2003. Meanwhile, one of the male children had not been heard of since he travelled abroad in 1953.
Upon service of the writ and statement of claim on the defendant he filed a defence and counterclaimed for a declaration that he is the sole legal and beneficial owner of the property. He maintained that the deed of gift was genuine, valid and binding against the plaintiffs and that since he was then the only male child he was the sole owner of the property. He contended that since the death of