OFORI AGYEKUM & MADAM AKUA BIO v. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ATUGUBA JSC. [PRESIDING]
- ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC
- ANIN YEBOAH JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Property Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that the property in question was the self-acquired property of the deceased, Opanin Yaw Manu. The distribution of the estate is governed by the Intestate Succession Law, 1985, PNDCL 111. The defendant's counterclaims were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
BENIN, JSC:-
My Lords, the issue that is raised in this appeal is a familiar one, familiar in the sense that since the promulgation of the Intestate Succession Law, 1985, PNDCL 111, upon the death intestate of a person, the extended family immediately argues that the immoveable property that the deceased’s immediate family seek to enjoy is the property of the extended family. The deceased’s immediate and extended family would therefore embark upon oftentimes protracted litigation to determine whether or not the property in question is the self-acquired property of the deceased or that of his extended family. This is one of such cases that we are called upon to finally resolve. The good intentions behind the promulgation of PNDCL 111 have unfortunately resulted in a new wave of litigation, and who knows when this type of litigation will end, especially given the fact that a lot of properties acquired in this country have been, and continue to be, done through customary grant of land without any form of title registration. And so it happened in this case that as soon as Opanin Yaw Manu of Mamponteng-Ashanti died in the year 2001, his customary successor, the defendant/respondent/appellant herein, hereafter called the defendant, assumed full control of all the assets, both moveable and immoveable, which the children of the deceased claimed were owned by him. The children of the late Opanin Yaw Manu, who are being represented in these proceedings by one of their number called Ofori Agyekum, resisted the defendant’s control over their late father’s assets, saying property numbered EB 26, subsequently re-numbered as Plot 11C, Block F, situate at Mamponteng was their father’s self-acquired property. The defendant’s position was that Opanin Yaw Manu only enjoyed this property as caretaker for his life since it was family property. Thus the familiar issue whether or not the property in dispute numbered EB 26 but renumbered as Plot 11C, Block F, Mamponteng is the self-acquired property of the late Opanin Yaw Manu or that of his extended family. Indeed it was the key issue to be resolved on the pleadings between the plaintiff/appellant/respondent, hereafter called the plaintiff and the defendant; all other issues are ancillary and not quite controversial.
By the endorsement on the amended writ of summons the plaintiff sought these reliefs against the defendant:
i. A declaration that H/No. EB 26 renumbered as Plot 11C, Block F, Mamponteng-Ashanti was the