MR. POBI SAMUEL & 2ORS VS MADAM LYDIA ASANTE APOMAH & 3ORS
2022
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- H/H ADELAIDE ABUI KEDDEY
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Probate and Succession
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2022
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
After the death intestate of Ebenezer Asante Apomah in November 2017, his brother (the 1st Plaintiff) and Doris (the 2nd Plaintiff) sued Lydia Asante Pomah and other family members to secure cooperation for estate administration. The plaintiffs sought access for inventory and alleged that some properties, including commercial vehicles, were being concealed; Doris also claimed she was the deceased’s second wife and had contributed GHC20,000 toward an uncompleted house in Kasoa, asserting co-ownership. The defendants maintained an inventory was already taken at Tuba-Kokrobite (Exhibits ‘1’ and ‘2’) and denied knowledge of additional assets. Applying the Evidence Act and Ghanaian customary family law, the court found both Lydia and Doris were customary wives, but held Doris failed to prove part ownership of the Kasoa house; it rejected claims of hidden properties, ordered the parties to jointly apply for letters of administration to manage the proven estate items, and declined to order a fresh inventory or costs.
The Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 2nd July, 2019 praying for the reliefs below.
1. An order directed at the Defendants to give access to the 1st Plaintiff to take inventory of all properties belonging to the late Ebenezer Asante Apomah (deceased).
2. An order directed at the Defendants to co-operate with the 1st Plaintiff as customary successor to enable him take out letters of administration to ensure that the deceased’s properties are distributed according to Law.
3. Costs
4. Any other order or orders that this Honourable Court may seem fit.
THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS
It is the case of the plaintiffs that on November 11th, 2017, their brother, husband and father Ebenezer Asante Apomah died intestate after a short illness and the family gave him a befitting burial as required by tradition. Thereafter, he was appointed customary successor and tasked by the family to ensure that letters of administration was taken to ensure a fair distribution of the deceased properties after the one year anniversary.
Also, the 2nd plaintiff avers that she together with the deceased are part owners of the last place of abode of the deceased having contributed cash towards the purchase of same at Kasoa.
THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS
It is the case of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants that immediately after the death of the deceased, the 1st plaintiff came to their residence at Tuba-Korkrobite in the Ga South District at Accra and informed 1st defendant that he had come to take stock of the properties that his late husband had left behind. That the 1st plaintiff was given access and he took the stock of the properties for which he signed and asked her children to counter-sign. A copy was tendered into evidence and marked as Exhibit ‘1’. Thereafter, the 1st plaintiff brought a typed copy of the stock taken dated 31st August, 2017 and asked her to sign as a widow for herself and on behalf of her three children tendered into evidence and marked as Exhibits ‘2’.
THE ISSUES ADOPTED FOR TRIAL
a) Whether or not the 2nd Plaintiff is a spouse of the late Ebenezer Asante Ampomah.
b) Whether or not the 2nd Plaintiff is a part owner of the house where deceased Ebenezer Asante Ampomah lived.
c) Whether or not the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants have refused to cooperate with the 1st Plaintiff in his attempt to take out Letter of Administration.
d) Whether or not the late Ebenezer Asante Apomah had properties which included commercial vehicles which t