QUARTEY AND OTHERS v. QUARTEY AND OTHERS
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OSEI-HWERE J.S.C
- AMPIAH
- ESSIEM JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Property Law
- Trusts and Estates
- Civil Procedure
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs appealed against the judgment of the High Court, Accra which dismissed their claim for title to a property and gave judgment for the defendants. The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings that the property belonged to the defendants and their siblings and that the plaintiffs' father held the property in trust and had no capacity to devise it in his will. The appeal was dismissed.
The plaintiff-appellants in this action (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) are the children of the late Emmanuel Quao Kpakpa Quartey who was also the brother of the defendants. By their writ of summons, the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to house No. C 29/1, Adama Avenue, Adabraka situate on plot No. 23, Adabraka, Accra. They also sought for an order of ejectment against the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and a further order of injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or servants from collecting further rents from the said house. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and counterclaimed for an order setting aside an indenture No. 4505/A/38 dated 1 October 1938 which apparently vested the said property in their brother E. Q. K. Quartey alone. The learned trial judge of the High Court, Accra dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and gave judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim after he had ordered further amendment of that claim. It is against this judgment that the plaintiffs have appealed.
The plaintiffs who at the initial stages of this appeal were represented by counsel decided after their counsel had withdrawn to prosecute the appeal themselves through their spokesman, the first plaintiff, namely A. K. Quartey. Before the hearing of the appeal, however, counsel for the defendants who had earlier filed a notice of amendment moved the court for the amendment of the counterclaim. This was granted without objection.
Arguing for the plaintiff’s, the first plaintiff submitted in substance that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and that the learned trial judge failed to take into consideration the effect of the indenture No. 4505/A/38 of 1 October 1938, which had vested the property in their father. He could not deny or admit specifically whether the said property was originally vested in the father of the defendants, J. H. Quartey, but contended that whatever interest the said J. H. Quartey had in that property was forfeited by the government after failure to build on the land as covenanted. The government thereafter vested the property in their father, E. Q. K. Quartey, who built on the land and subsequently devised it to them (the plaintiffs and their other brothers and sisters) in his will dated 10 July 1961 probate of which was taken on 25 September 1967 . The first plaintiff made fetish of a docket reference No. 2041/1711 which contained a letter date