NICHOLAS ASHIE ASHONG v. LARYEA ODAMTTEN

DZAMEFE, JA

The plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court dated 16th July 2008, in favour of the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, filed this appeal on the following grounds; -i. That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

Cost of awarded were excessive.

Facts The facts of the case as given by the appellant suing for himself and siblings was that, he and all the siblings named in paragraph 1 of his statement of claim are grandchildren of one Madam Korkor Pobee, deceased.

She died intestate in 1973 but no Letters of Administration was obtained after her death.

She was survived by her grandchildren namely Kotey Ashong, AnangTetteh, Anang Charway, Timothy Kotey Ashong, Kofi-Adu Charway, Richard Kotei Ashong and Samson Kotey Ashong.

The deceased had a plot of a land in her lifetime and after her death, one Ataa Ahia, her eldest surviving child took over the management and control of it.

Upon the death of Ataa Ahia the respondent’s father called Ataa Bukari Odamtten, the next in order of seniority, took over and managed the said property together with one Richard TettehAshong and Jonas Andrews, all children of the deceased Korkor Pobee.

AtaaBukari Odamtten managed the property as family property and kept thedocuments in respect of the land in his custody.

The appellant’s case is that on the death of Ataa Bukari the respondent in the instant case who is his son kept the documents and without the consent and permission of the family unilaterally took over the management of the propertywithout accounting to the other members of the family.

The property which is situate at a commercially viable area opposite the Trade Fair site, La, Accra, has been virtually appropriated by the respondent to the exclusion of the appellants.

The appellants said further that the respondent has caused to be prepared a document in respect of the land in his personal name and produced same to the police at La, as evidence of his title.

The appellant’s contend that the respondents’ conduct was wrongful and fraudulent and listing the particulars of fraud as the land belonging to the deceased, the respondent concealing the document covering the land and surreptitiously preparing a document in respect of the land without reference to the family.

Wherefore the appellants claimed for a declaration that the said property is family property and that the respondent should account for his stewards