NANA NUFASEI ALIAS FAUSTINA AMPONSAH v. JOHN HAMMOND & OTHERS
July 16, 2014
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- C. J. HONYENUGA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- D. D. ADJEI, J.A.
- B. F. ACKAH-YENSU (MS), J.A
July 16, 2014
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This appeal by the defendants/appellants is against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 10th October 2013. The said judgment upheld the plaintiff/respondent’s claim.
The facts of this appeal are that the deceased George Hammond was the brother of the full blood of the 1st and 2nd defendants/appellants, unlike the 3rd defendant/appellant who is the son of the deceased. The deceased left the shores of Ghana in 1964 and permanently resided in the United Kingdom until he died at the age of 75 years. The deceased visited Ghana only once in 2003. The plaintiff/appellant who is a sub-chief met George Hammond in London in 1989 and thereafter, both entered into a relationship which later led to a customary marriage between them in 1997. Both the plaintiff/appellant and George Hammond cohabited at No.10 Crusoe Road, Mitcham Surrey CRA 3 LG London from 1997 until the deceased fell ill in 2010 and was brought to Ghana where he died in August 2010. The relationship was blessed with a child named George Hammond (Jnr.) who later died at the age of 31/2 years. After the death of George Hammond (deceased) the defendants/appellants including some other family members would not allow the plaintiff/respondent to participate in her late husband’s funeral rites as demanded by custom. Aggrieved by the action of the deceased’s family, the plaintiff/appellant commenced an action at the Circuit Court, Swedru claiming among others that she was the lawful wife of the deceased. The plaintiff/appellant obtained an ex-parte injunction order to restrain the defendants/appellants but the matter was settled out of court. Despite the settlement, the defendants/appellants refused her participation in the funeral and the plaintiff/respondent discontinued the Circuit Court action and filed the instant writ of summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim which was later amended and claimed as follows:-
“(i) A declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful wife of George Kwesi Amuakwa Hammond (deceased) late of Breman Asikuma.
(ii) A declaration that under Akan custom the plaintiff by virtue of her position as the deceased’s lawful wife is entitled to participate fully in the performance of the funeral of her deceased husband.
(iii) An order compelling the defendants and their Asona royal family of Breman Asikuma to permit the plaintiff to participate fully in the funeral of the deceased aforementioned.
(iv) An order for the enforcement of the terms of s
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Honyenuga J.A., considered an appeal by George Hammond’s family members—his siblings (1st and 2nd appellants) and his son (3rd appellant)—against a High Court judgment recognizing the respondent as Hammond’s lawful customary wife and entitling her to participate in his funeral. Hammond, who lived in the United Kingdom from 1964 and cohabited with the respondent in Mitcham, Surrey, had customary rites performed in Ghana in 1997 through Major (Rtd) Yaw Asani, and the couple were publicly known as husband and wife, with pre-litigation documents referring to the respondent as “Mrs. Faustina Hammond.” After Hammond died in Ghana in 2010, his family barred her from funeral participation. The High Court granted declaratory and injunctive reliefs and costs. On appeal, the Court held that the appellants’ complaint concerned venue, not jurisdiction, and that they waived any venue objection by not raising it before filing a defense. Allegations of forum shopping and evidentiary error were rejected, as the trial judge’s findings were supported, PW4’s customary law testimony established that siblings’ presence is not indispensable, and corroborating documents existed. The Court affirmed the High Court but struck out the 3rd appellant for improper joinder under Order 4 rule 5 since the writ was not amended and served after the joinder order. ADJEI, J.A., and ACKAH-YENSU, J.A., concurred.