QUANSAH v. ADADEIWA
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ARCHER J.A
Areas of Law
- Property Law
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case highlights the importance of verifying legal documents in property transactions. The plaintiff failed to prove that he was the customary successor to J. E. Quansah. Moreover, the court determined that the family was estopped by their conduct from asserting rights over the property.
The plaintiff as customary successor of his late brother J. E. Quansah claims against the defendant, the widow of the said late brother, a declaration of title to that piece or parcel of land with the buildings thereon, situate at Aboom, Cape Coast, and known as Plot 95. The plaintiff also claims an account of all rents collected by the defendant from tenants occupying the building on the said land and also payment to the plaintiff of the amount that may be found due and owing.
The facts of the case are that by an indenture dated 5 May 1947 tendered as exhibit B, one William Essuman-Gwira Sekyi as vendor conveyed the land in question to Madam Effua Atta, the mother of the plaintiff and his deceased brother, J. E. Quansah, for the consideration of the sum of £G85 paid by the purchaser. According to the plaintiff in his evidence, he had a transaction with his late brother in relation to this piece of land, and the two of them purchased the land in the name of their mother, Madam Effua Atta. After exhibit B had been executed, Madam Effua Atta did nothing about the land and the plaintiff and his deceased brother put up a building on the land supervised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also testified that his late brother approached their mother and explained to her that owing to unforeseen circumstances, the land should be conveyed to the deceased brother. As a result of this approach, a deed of gift was made by their mother. This deed of gift was [p.186] tendered as exhibit C and it is dated 7 August 1955. The plaintiff’s brother died on 15 July 1962 when the building had not been completed. After the brother’s death, the defendant occupied the house together with her tenants. The plaintiff claims to have been appointed customary successor of his late brother who died intestate and claims the house, now occupied by the defendant and the other tenants, as family property.
The defendant disputes that the plaintiff has ever been appointed customary successor and claims that the house was devised by Madam Effua Atta. who died on 7 February 1964 to the defendant’s children by the deceased brother, J. E. Quansah. The original probate with copy of the will attached was tendered as exhibit 1. The defendant has challenged the validity of the deed of gift—exhibit C. The questions to be decided by the court appears to me to be:
(1) whether the plaintiff is the customary successor of the late J. E. Quansah, and
(2) whether at the date of the death of Madam Effua Att