February 26, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana reviewed a second appeal by Kojo Amoah’s widows and child (with the customary successor) against High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that had granted Kojo’s niece and nephew rights to House No. B445/21, North Kaneshie. The plaintiffs alleged customary adoption and a vernacular testament (samansiw) by Kojo to settle the property upon them, emphasizing their mother Akua Panyin’s financial contribution. The Supreme Court, applying the weight-of-evidence rehearing standard, analyzed whether trial and first appellate courts’ findings should stand. It held that mere custody and care of nephews and nieces do not constitute customary adoption under Plange v Plange’s requirements. It rejected the “children of the household” theory, reaffirming PNDC Law 111’s focus on the nuclear family. On the samansiw, while Kojo’s capacity and self-acquisition were accepted, the attestation by two credible, disinterested witnesses failed due to the witnesses’ interests and disputes. The Court set aside the adoption and household-child findings and allowed the appeal, reversing the vesting order.
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC:
On the 11th of June 2012, the Court of Appeal, by a 2 to 1 majority, affirmed the decision of the High Court which was delivered on the 18th of June 2010. In the said decision, the High Court granted all the reliefs endorsed on the amended writ of summons and statement of claim taken against the defendants therein by the plaintiffs on 29th of June 2009.The Learned High Court made this pronouncement;
“That in his lifetime, the late Kojo Amoah told the plaintiffs and his family that upon his death house No. B445/21 North Kaneshie should be given to the plaintiffs.
It is as a result ordered that the defendants should immediately take steps to vest the property in the plaintiffs “( These were upheld by the Court of Appeal)
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the defendants filed a process titled Notice of Appeal formulated thus:
“That the Judgment of the Court of Appeal is a wrong exercise of discretion“. This ‘Ground’ it must be pointed out is non-existent in terms of procedure.
Learned Counsel must have come to that realization and therefore subsequently, with leave of the Court amended same to read as follows:
“The judgment is against the weight of evidence”``
In order to fully appreciate the issues raised, it is necessary to give a re` sume` of the events culminating into the present appeal.
The respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the court of 1st instance, commenced an action which was subsequently amended against the defendants, the appellants herein for these reliefs:
“A declaration that the late Kojo Amoah in his lifetime told the plaintiffs and his family, both immediate and extended that in appreciation of the financial assistance towards the putting up of House No B455/21 North Kaneshie by the late mother of the plaintiffs, the said house should be given to plaintiffs upon his demise”.
“An order directed at the defendants to vest House No B445/2 in the plaintiffs in accordance with the wishes and directives of the late Kojo Amoah”.
Their case, as per the amended statement of claim, was that the late Kojo Amoah ,who was the uterine brother of their mother, Akua Panyin, customarily adopted them upon her demise, that when they were handed over to him, Kojo Amoah was given a Bank Accounts Book for the use of the savings therein for their upkeep. He brought them to stay with him, treated them very well, took very good care of them and saw them through their education. They in return served him