Odotah v Ababio (LD/0375/19) [2024] GHAHC 534 (12 December 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT IN THE FINANCIAL & ECONOMIC CRIME DIVISION 1 SITTING IN GENERAL JURISDICTION 14 HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. ERNEST OWUSU-DAPAA JA SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE SUIT NO.: LD/0375/19 NII KOTEY ODOTAH PLAINTIFF VS THEOPHILUS ABABIO DEFENDANT (SUBST’D. BY ISAAC AHIEAKWE BOTCHWAY) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTIES: PLAINTIFF REP. BY CLEMENT NII KWEI PRESENT DEFENDANT – PRESENT COUNSEL: J. K. YEBOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF – ABSENT ABDUL-GAFAR ABLORH ABORDO WITH KAFUI LAGBLE FOR THE DEFENDNAT - PRESENT JUDGMENT [1]. By his Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim, Plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs: a. A declaration by the Court that the Plaintiff is the recognized current Head of Family of NIKOITSE WE Family of Teshie. Page 1 of 29 b. A further declaration by the Court that the Defendant and his faction have their own family house at Teshie KLANAA which is different from the family house of the Plaintiff. c. The Plaintiff seeks a further declaration that the Defendant and his Adjei faction are not part of the family of Nikoitse We family of Teshie Klanaa. d. Any other relief that the Court may consider appropriate. [2] The Defendant by his Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim pursuant to order of this Court, prayed for the following reliefs; a. A declaration that the Klanaa family is the family of both Plaintiff and Defendant, and same has always been one family unit. b. A declaration that the Defendant is the Head of the Klanaa family, Krobor, Teshie. c. A declaration that there is no Nikoitse We Klanaa We. d. An order of perpetual injunction, restraining the Plaintiff from holding himself out as Head of Klanaa or allowing himself to be held out as Head of Klanaa Family of Krobor, Teshie. e. Costs, including legal fee of Defendant on full indemnity basis, and any other relief arising out of the pleadings. In matters of family disputes, the principles of unity, integrity and truthfulness are paramount. These values not only underpin harmonious familial relationships but also ensure fair and just resolutions. The Scriptures offer profound insights into maintaining family unity and warn against the dangers of deceit and misrepresentation. As this Court deliberates the case between the Klanaa Family of Teshie and the Defendant, it is fitting to reflect upon these timeless Biblical teachings to underscore the moral and ethical foundations guiding our judicial responsibilities. Conversely, the Scriptures warn against deceit, which can severely damage familial relationships and societal trust. Proverbs 12:22 states, “The Lord detests lying lips, but he Page 2 of 29 delights in people who are trustworthy”. Exodus 20:16 strictly prohibits bearing false witness: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor”. This serves as a stern reminder that integrity is essential for sustaining trust and unity within the family and the broader community. Proverbs 19:5 warns, “A false witness will not go unpunished, and whoever pours out lies will perish”. Procedural History [3]. On 25th January 2019, the Plaintiff commenced these proceedings by issuing a Writ of Summons against the Defendant, Mr. Theophilus Ababio, which was duly served. In response, the Defendant entered Appearance and filed a Statement of Defence on 19th February, 2019. Subsequently, on 10th April 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence, together with an Application for Directions. On 14th June 2019, the Plaintiff filed two Witness Statements—one by the Plaintiff himself and another by his Witness, Nii Kotey Nikoi Jonathan—as well as a Pre-Trial Checklist on the same day. It is noteworthy that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were amended, as were the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, to reflect orders of this Court and the evolving positions of the parties. In compliance with such an order, the Defendant filed an Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on 23rd July, 2024. Additionally, the Defendant filed his own Witness Statement on 25th August, 2022. The trial of the matter eventually commenced on 13th June, 2023 and concluded on 23rd July, 2024. Throughout this period, the parties presented their cases in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. 0 Plaintiff’s Case as Pleaded [5]. The Plaintiff, Nii Kotey Odotah, avers that he is the Head of Family of the Nikoitse We Klanaa of Teshie, Accra. He explains that his ancestor, Kuokor Agyeman, originally from Ga Mashie, took Numo Okang Nmashie from La as a spouse. Kuokor Agyeman, who had two sons from a previous marriage, relocated to Teshie with Numo Okang Nmashie and some of Page 3 of 29 her brothers, and it was one of these accompanying children who founded what is now known as the Nikoitse We Klanaa family. The name “Nikoitse” or “Klanaa” is said to be derived from the family’s shrine, a symbol of their ancestral and spiritual heritage. [6]. Within this family structure, the Chief Priest, or Wulomo, is Numo Kotey Klan, who resides at the family house and cares for the shrine. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant, who purports to be the current head of a so-called “Klan Na” family, is in fact not the Head of Family of any separate entity. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant hails from the “Adjei” faction, a group that claims affiliation to the Nikoitse We family and often styles itself as the “Klanaa” people. However, the Plaintiff insists that there is no separate “Klan Na” family and that the legitimate family in question is the Nikoitse We Klanaa, over which he presides as Head of Family. [7]. In setting out the family’s spatial and cultural arrangements, the Plaintiff notes that the Nikoitse We family house is located at Teshie, Krobo, and it is there that deceased family members are traditionally laid in state. The family shrine is also kept at this house, under the care of Numo Kotey Klan, the acknowledged Wulomo of the family. By contrast, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant and his faction maintain their own distinct house in Teshie, Krobo, separate from the Plaintiff’s family home, and they likewise have their own place for laying their dead in state and for keeping their own shrine. [8]. The Plaintiff contends that despite these clear distinctions, the Defendant and his faction have been treating the Plaintiff’s family house as if it were their own. They have, on various occasions, held family meetings and outdooring ceremonies at the Plaintiff’s premises, while simultaneously refusing to recognize Numo Kotey Klan as the legitimate Chief Priest. The Plaintiff categorically denies any familial connection between his Nikoitse We Klanaa family and the Defendant’s faction, and insists that the Defendant’s group has no claim over the Plaintiff’s family house at Teshie Klanaa quarter. Page 4 of 29 [9]. In support of these positions, the Plaintiff refers to the documented traditions and administrative practices of Teshie, as captured in the publication “Teshie Administrative and Cultural Practices” (E. Ago Kwei, E. Adzei Anang, and T. Adjei Bekoe, 2004), which details the family structures and cultural norms observed in the community. Wherefore, the Plaintiff seeks declarations from this Honourable Court that he is the recognized Head of the Nikoitse We family of Teshie; that the Defendant and his faction have their own separate family house at Teshie Klanaa, distinct from the Plaintiff’s family home; and that the Defendant’s Adjei faction is not part of the Nikoitse We family of Teshie Klanaa. The Plaintiff also prays that the Court grants any further reliefs it deems just and appropriate in the circumstances. Defendant Case as Pleaded [10]. In response to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, the Defendant generally denies every allegation not expressly admitted, placing the Plaintiff under a strict burden of proof. The Defendant vehemently disputes the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is any family known as “Nikoitse We Klan” in Teshie, under the umbrella of the “Klanaa” house, and accordingly challenges the Plaintiff’s capacity to bring this action. [11]. The Defendant contends that he, and he alone, is the Head of the Klanaa family and has been duly recognized as such throughout the relevant quarters of Teshie. He acknowledges that Numo Okang Nmashie from La, did marry Kuokor Agyeman from Ga Mashie, after settling permanently in Teshie in the eighteenth century. While conceding that Kuokor Agyeman had two sons prior to her marriage, the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s claim that any such children or lineage established a Nikoitse We Klan. Rather, the Defendant emphasizes that it was Numo Okang Nmashie, who, with his brothers, sisters, children, nephews and nieces, founded Teshie around 1710. At the time of his marriage to Kuokor, Numo Okang Nmashie already had children of his own. Kuokor’s two sons were thus simply added to a pre-existing family unit. Page 5 of 29 [12]. The Defendant explains that Kuokor introduced a fetish called “Klan” into the marriage, a spiritual object presented by her father to help preserve the union. Numo Okang Nmashie’s brothers—Boye Owusu, Ashia, Nmai, Ashong and Botwe—had accompanied him to settle in Teshie. However, Numo and Kuokor had no children together. The newly introduced Klan fetish was entrusted to the care of Boye Owusu, who was then responsible for maintaining the fetishes associated with the house. Following the death of Numo Okang Nmashie around 1731, one of Kuokor’s sons remained with Boye Owusu, while the other resided with Nii Abandantsewe, the oldest son of Numo Okang Nmashie. These arrangements resulted in two primary houses—those of Boye and Abandantsewe—serving as sources for priests for the Klan fetish. According to the Defendant, the term “Klanaa” derived from the location on the forecourt of Nii Boye Owusu’s house where the Klan fetish was kept, and reflects the Ga language reference to “the place of the Klan.” [13] In contrast to the Plaintiff’s claims, the Defendant maintains that he is the recognized Family Head of Klanaa, and that the appointment of the Chief Priest (Wulomo) occurs only with his consent and authority. The person so appointed resides at the family house at his behest. The Defendant insists that he is the legitimately endorsed Family Head of Klanaa, as supported by the Teshie Krobor Dzaase, and flatly refutes the Plaintiff’s assertion of a separate Nikoitse We family. While acknowledging that the Plaintiff is a member of the Klanaa family, the Defendant states that the family is composed of two main sections: the “Nikoi” section, to which the Plaintiff belongs, and the “Nii Adjei” section, to which the Defendant belongs. The Defendant recounts how a certain Numo Joshua, originally from Ga Mashie, was later accepted and accommodated within the compound of Nii Boye Owusu. Joshua’s son, Oko, also settled in the compound. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is actually a descendant of this Numo Joshua, who, being a stranger in the Klan naa household, was never part of the lineage of either Numo Boye Owusu or the patriarch, Numo Okang Nmashie. [14]. Addressing the Plaintiff’s references to the location of family houses, the Defendant denies the existence of any “Nikoitse We” family house at Teshie Krobor. The Defendant explains that the Klan naa family house is at Teshie Krobor and that the names “Nikoi” and “Kotey,” Page 6 of 29 associated with the Plaintiff’s lineage, originated from the attendants who accompanied Kuokor, themselves strangers from Asene Djorshi. The Defendant states that the hall and chamber built by Numo Joshua eventually became the designated place where his descendants would lay their dead in state, a tradition sanctioned by the elders of Nii Boye Owusu’s family compound. Non-members of the Klan naa family, generally from Ga Mashie, came to use this place for funeral rites as well. [15]. The Defendant insists that the Klanaa family—which he characterizes as descendants of Numo Okang Nmashie—maintains its own room for laying the dead in state, separate from the places associated with strangers. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff’s alleged shrine is part of Nikoitse We Klanaa; instead, he reiterates that the Klan naa shrine is located in the forecourt of the family house. Both the Nii Adjei Abandantse house and Klan naa house alternate in nominating and installing the Wulomo of the Klan naa shrine. The current Wulomo, installed by the Klan naa family under the Defendant’s authority, was duly selected in accordance with custom. The Defendant accepts that the Klan naa shrine is in the forecourt of the Kian noa (Klanaa) family house. However, he disputes the Plaintiff’s claim of a separate Nikoitse We Klanaa family, and maintains that Klanaa historically comprises two sections—Nii Adjei and Nikoi—under one united family. The Defendant’s position is that members of the Nikoi section were accepted into the family by the Nii Adjei section, which descended from Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Panto Botwe, the original builders of the Klan naa Family house. [16]. The Defendant denies that he and his people conduct their affairs in any location but their rightful Klan naa family house. He further rejects any notion that the Plaintiff’s Wulomo is not recognized. Rather, the Defendant recounts an incident in which the current Wulomo, allegedly aligned with the Plaintiff, and certain associates violently invaded the Klan naa family house, wounding a family member and forcing others to flee. This matter was reported to the Teshie Police and remains under investigation. The Defendant further denies that the Plaintiff has any family house at Teshie Klan naa quarter or that there is any recognized “Nikoitse We” in Ga tradition. The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff’s lineage originated from Asene Djorshie and Page 7 of 29 does not descend from the legitimate Klan naa line, which traces through Numo Boye Owusu and Numo Panto—true descendants of Numo Okang Nmashie. While the Defendant acknowledges that Teshie’s administrative structure and cultural practices are longstanding and widely recognized, he maintains that the Plaintiff’s claims find no support in these traditions. [17]. In asserting a Counterclaim, the Defendant maintains that the Klanaa Family House at Teshie Krobor was constructed by two brothers, Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Pantu Botwe, as a single, unified family unit. Over time, the Plaintiff’s progenitors and descendants were accepted into this one family unit, with the Plaintiff’s line traditionally providing the Kla Wulomo (Chief Priest) and the Defendant’s line supplying the Head of the Klanaa Family. The Defendant pleaded that he is the current Head of Klanaa Family, having succeeded the late Nii Adjeteyfio Nyamkpo, who was adjudged Head of the Klanaa Family in an earlier suit (No. A9/130/2010). That decision which was a District Court decision according to Defendant, was affirmed by the High Court, General Jurisdiction Division 5, Accra, in an appeal (No. GJ/104/2016), which cemented the status of the late Nii Adjeteyfio Nyamkpo as Head of the Klanaa Family at the material time. Now, the Defendant continues as recognized headship. The Plaintiff, fully aware of these judgments, never challenged them previously and is thereby estopped from doing so now. [18]. Consequently, the Defendant seeks declarations that the Klanaa family has always been a unified family unit encompassing both Plaintiff and Defendant; that the Defendant is the legitimate Head of the Klanaa family of Teshie Krobor; that there is no distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa We”; and that the Plaintiff be perpetually restrained from holding himself out, or being held out by others, as Head of Klanaa Family. The Defendant further seeks costs, including indemnity for legal fees, and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances. Application for Directions and Issues for Trial Page 8 of 29 [19]. On 10th April 2019, the Plaintiff filed an Application for Directions and enumerated a number of issues for determination at trial. These included: • Whether or not there exists a Nikoitse We Klan family of Teshie, of which the Plaintiff is the lawful Head of Family; and • Whether or not the Klanaa family of Teshie is identical to the Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie. In addition, on 24th June 2021, the Plaintiff filed further issues for consideration, apparently stemming from amendments to the pleadings. The Court’s records do not indicate that the Defendant filed any supplementary issues for the Court’s determination. [20]. I find it necessary to set down for trial the initial issues raised by the Plaintiff on 10th April 2019, which are as follows: a. Whether or not there is a Nikoitse We Klan family of Teshie, of which the Plaintiff is the lawful Head of Family; b. Whether or not the Klanaa family of Teshie is the same as the Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie; c. Whether or not the Defendant is the lawful Head of the Klanaa family of Teshie; d. Whether or not Kuokor Agyeman had one issue with Numo Okang Nmashie, known as Nii Afutu; e. Whether or not Klanaa was founded by Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Panto; f. Whether or not Numo Okofio was the founder of Nikoitse We Klanaa, and a brother to Kuokor Agyeman; g. Whether or not the hall and chamber where deceased relatives are laid in state was built by Numo Joshua; h. Whether or not the Defendant and his family have their own separate fetish priest, distinct from that of the Nikoitse We family of Teshie; Page 9 of 29 i. Whether or not the Defendant and his people have their own separate place for laying deceased relatives in state; j. Whether or not the Nikoitse We Klanaa family house at Teshie Krobo is jointly owned by both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s relatives; and k. Whether or not the Defendant and his people are entitled to hold funerals and other meetings at the Nikoitse We Klanaa family house of Teshie; l. Any additional issue or issues arising from the pleadings. [21]. Subsequently, pursuant to amendments filed on 24th June 2021, the Plaintiff further sought to introduce the following issues: a. Whether or not Boye Owusu was a brother to Numo Okang Nmashie; b. Whether or not Klanaa was founded by two brothers of Numo Okang Nmashie, namely Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Boye Panto; c. Whether or not, besides Nikoitse We, there exists a “Nii Adjei” section of the Klanaa family of Teshie; d. Whether or not the Plaintiff is a descendant of Numo Joshua; and e. Whether or not the current Wulomo of the Klanaa family was appointed by the Defendant. Consolidated Issues for Determination [22]. In view of the sheer quantity of the issues filed by the parties, I deem it necessary to merge and consolidate them for coherence and convenience of fair determination. The issues are thematically grouped into existence and identity of the Families, Ancestral Property and Ritual Practices, Authority and Appointment of Wulomo and other general issues arising from the pleadings and evidence. Page 10 of 29 Existence and Identity of the Families: a. Whether there exists a Nikoitse We Klan family of Teshie, and if so, whether the Plaintiff is its lawful Head of Family. b. Whether the Klanaa family of Teshie is the same as the Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie. c. Whether the Defendant is the lawful Head of the Klanaa family of Teshie. d. Whether, in the lineage of these families, Kuokor Agyeman and Numo Okang Nmashie had a child named Nii Afutu. e. Whether the Klanaa family was founded by Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Panto, and if they were brothers or otherwise related to Numo Okang Nmashie. f. Whether Numo Okofio, alleged founder of Nikoitse We Klanaa, was a brother to Kuokor Agyeman. g. Whether there exists a “Nii Adjei” section of the Klanaa family distinct from the Nikoitse We section, and if the Plaintiff is a descendant of Numo Joshua, a figure purportedly integrated into the Klanaa family. Ancestral Property and Ritual Practices: a. Whether the hall and chamber where deceased family members are laid in state was built by Numo Joshua. b. Whether the Defendant and his family maintain a separate fetish priest and a separate place for laying their dead in state, apart from those of the Nikoitse We family. c. Whether the Nikoitse We Klanaa family house at Teshie Krobo is jointly owned by the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s relatives. d. Whether the Defendant and his people are entitled to hold funerals and other family meetings at the Nikoitse We Klanaa family house. Page 11 of 29 Authority and Appointment of Wulomo: Whether the current Wulomo (fetish priest) of the Klanaa family was appointed by the Defendant, and how this relates to the lawful headship and organizational structure of the family. Any Other Issues: Any additional matters arising from the pleadings and evidence that bear on the relationships, headship, property rights, or customary practices of the Nikoitse We Klanaa and Klanaa families of Teshie. The Law on Burden of Proof and its Allocation [23]. Civil proceedings in our jurisdiction are guided by a fundamental tenet that the party who makes an allegation generally bears the initial burden of proving it. This core principle is enshrined in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), Section 10 (2) of NRCD 323 stipulates: "The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non-existence of a fact, or to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of probabilities." Section 14 of the same Act reinforces that: "Unless and until it is shifted, a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting." The corresponding standard for meeting this burden is explained in Section 11(4) of NRCD 323: Page 12 of 29 "The burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence." [24]. Put differently, a party vested with this burden must provide enough credible evidence so that, on evaluating all the evidence, the Court can find in that party’s favour on the balance of probabilities. This approach is encapsulated in Sections 10, 11, and 12 of NRCD 323. The classic English decision in Abrath v NE Railway Co [1881-85] All ER 614 (at p. 619), per Bowen LJ, aptly illustrates how the onus may shift as evidence is adduced: “Whenever there is an action to be tried generally the plaintiff begins. If he proves nothing he fails, if he proves his case and the other side proves nothing to answer it, they fail. The test is, if no more evidence were given in addition to what has already been proved which side would win? But the onus does not rest forever on whom it is cast in the first instance. Where he gives evidence, which rebuts the evidence given against him he shifts the burden and it rests on his opponent. The question as to the onus of proof is only a mode of deciding who is to go further and how much he has to go.” [25]. The principle that facts must be determined in a binary fashion—either proven or not—is poignantly captured by Lord Hoffman in Re B [2008] UKHL 3, who emphasized that the fact- finding process leaves no middle ground: “If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a fact in issue) a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carried the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as having not happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened.” [26]. Once the identity of the party bearing the burden of proof is determined, attention turns to the standard of proof in civil cases. Section 12 (1) of NRCD 323 mandates that facts be established “on the balance of probabilities.” This standard was affirmed in African Mission Church v Seba Page 13 of 29 Construction Ltd [2013] 59 GMJ 176 at 202, where Dordzie JA (as she then was) observed: “Proof in a civil case is based on the balance of probabilities…” Under this threshold, the asserting party need only show that their version of events is more likely true than not. If, after weighing the evidence, the probabilities are equal, the party carrying the burden falls short. Denning J, in Miller v Minister of Pensions [1974] 2 All ER 372 at 373, summed it up succinctly: “The degree of proof is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability. But not as high as in a criminal case. If it is such that the tribunal can say ‘we think it is more probable than not’ the burden is discharged. But if the probabilities are equal, it is not.” [27]. The approach in our domestic jurisprudence aligns with these common law principles. In Zambrama v. Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221, CA, Kpegah JA (as he then was) emphasized that a party who makes an assertion must adduce admissible and credible evidence from which the facts alleged can safely be drawn: “...a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true. And, he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can properly and safely be inferred.” (See also Takoradi Flour Mills v. Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 883.) [28]. The Supreme Court in In re Ashalley Botwe Lands: Adjetey Agbosu v Kotey [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 685, has underscored that this evidential burden is not static; it can shift during trial depending on how each party responds to the other’s evidence: “It is trite learning that by the statutory provisions of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323), the burden of producing evidence in any given case is not fixed, but shifts from party to party at various stages of the trial, depending on the issues asserted and or denied.” It bears emphasis that the party bearing the initial burden must produce sufficient, credible evidence to tip the scale in their favour on the balance of probabilities. If they fail, the fact is Page 14 of 29 treated as if it never occurred. If successful, the onus may shift to the opposing party, who must then rebut or neutralize that evidence to avoid liability. Summary of the Plaintiff’s Evidence as Per Witness Statement [29]. The Plaintiff, Nii Kotey Odotah, testifies that he is the lawful Head of the Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie, Krobo, having been nominated and installed in 2018. He explains that his lineage and family traditions stem from ancestors migrating from Asere Djornshie through La and marrying into the lineage of Nii Okang Nmashie. The Plaintiff states that a deity called “Klan,” symbolized by a crab, was given to his ancestress, Kuorkor Agyemang, to protect her marriage. This deity’s shrine is located at the forecourt of the family house at Teshie, Krobo, where family meetings, rites and the laying in state of deceased members occur. [30]. According to the Plaintiff, the present Wulomo (Chief Priest) was chosen by the deity and installed by the Plaintiff’s family elders. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s lineage originally came from Ningo and is not part of the Nikoitse We family, though they have been permitted at times to hold meetings at the Plaintiff’s family house by the Plaintiff’s leave, not as of right. The Defendant, in the Plaintiff’s view, has his own deity (Dade or Abgomulle) and separate house, and any assertion by the Defendant that he is the Head of the Klanaa family or that no Nikoitse We family exists is refuted by both local history and a published text on Teshie’s administrative and cultural practices. Summary of the Plaintiff’s Witness’s Evidence as Per Witness Statement [31]. The Plaintiff’s supporting Witness, Nii Kotey Nikoi Jonathan, identifies himself as the Head of the Nii Kotey Amli We of La, Klanaa, and confirms the longstanding existence of the Nikoitse We Klanaa family in Teshie, Krobo. He emphasizes that the family is distinct, with unique male and female naming traditions, and is historically associated with the Klan deity. According to this Witness, the Defendant’s people are originally from Ningo and are not true members of the Nikoitse We family, despite having at times enjoyed shelter and permission to hold meetings at Page 15 of 29 the Nikoitse We home. He disputes the Defendant’s historical claims and denies that the Defendant is, or ever has been, the head of the Nikoitse We family or the Klanaa group. Summary of the Defendant’s Evidence [32.] The Defendant, Isaac Ahiakwe Botchway, who has been substituted for the original Defendant, vigorously disputes the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the existence of a distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family under the Plaintiff’s headship. He asserts that there is only one recognized Klanaa family in Teshie, with its origins traced back to the brothers of Numo Okang Nmashie—namely, Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Boye Panto. According to the Defendant, the family consists of two sections: the “Nii Adjei” section to which he belongs, and the “Nikoi” section, which includes the Plaintiff’s lineage. Far from constituting an independent clan, the Plaintiff’s ancestors were incorporated as part of the Klanaa family, rather than establishing a separate “Nikoitse We Klanaa” group. [33]. The Defendant maintains that he, and before him his predecessor, the late Theophilus Ababio, as well as earlier family heads, have always been recognized and affirmed as leaders of the Klanaa family. Their status and authority have been upheld by traditional funeral notices, family records and judgments from previous Court actions. He further emphasizes that the Klan Wulomo (Chief Priest) is appointed under the authority of the Klanaa Head of Family, and this confirms the Defendant’s customary mandate. [34]. Additionally, the Defendant notes that members of the Plaintiff’s lineage historically lived as integrated residents under the Klanaa family umbrella. They have utilized a hall and chamber originally granted to their forebear, one Numo Joshua—a stranger to Teshie—merely by permission of the Klanaa family elders. Both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s ancestors have jointly participated in Homowo celebrations and contributed to funerary rites, supervised by the Klanaa Head of Family. In essence, the Defendant’s testimony challenges the Plaintiff’s portrayal of a separate familial identity and headship. Instead, it places the Plaintiff’s lineage squarely within the larger Klanaa family structure, and seeks to emphasis the Defendant’s role Page 16 of 29 as the legitimate Head of the unified Klanaa family, rather than recognizing any distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” entity. Facts Agreed Upon and Facts Contested by Parties [35]. The evidence adduced and the pleadings before this Court reveal a number of points on which the parties concur and others on which they sharply disagree. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant acknowledge the significance of Teshie, particularly Teshie Krobo, as the locus of their ancestral homes and traditions. They agree that Teshie has a longstanding historical and cultural heritage dating back to around the early eighteenth century. They also accept that there is a recognized Klanaa identity associated with Teshie, and that a deity known as “Klan” or “Klaa” exists and is served by a Wulomo (chief priest). Both sides concur that family houses in Teshie Krobo are traditional venues for laying in state deceased relatives, performing funerals and holding important family meetings, and they also agree that a series of Heads of Family have historically presided over these communal rites. [36]. Despite these shared foundations, serious disputes remain. The Plaintiff insists that there is a distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” or “Nii Koitse We Klanaa” family of which he is Head, but the Defendant rejects the existence of any such separate family, and rather maintains that there is only one Klanaa family divided into sections. While the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s ancestors originated from Ningo and were not part of the original Teshie lineage, the Defendant denies this, and claims to have ancestral roots through La into Teshie’s foundational community. The Plaintiff identifies his lineage as distinct, whereas the Defendant regards the Plaintiff’s group as simply a section of the larger Klanaa family, composed of various branches including the Plaintiff’s own “Nikoi” or “Nii Koi” segment and the Defendant’s “Nii Adjei” faction. [37]. The parties also differ concerning the origins and founders of the Klanaa family and its house. The Defendant contends that the Klanaa family was founded by two brothers of Numo Okang Nmashie, named Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Boye Panto, while the Plaintiff disputes this historical narrative. Their disagreement extends further to the number and nomenclature of Teshie Krobo’s quarters and houses: the Plaintiff references authoritative texts that speak of Page 17 of 29 eight quarters including a house known as Nii Koi Tse We Klanaa, while the Defendant either denies the existence of such a distinct entity or the correctness of this documentation. In quoting from a scholarly work on Teshie’s administrative and cultural structures, the Plaintiff attempted to establish the identity and distinctiveness of the Nikoitse We Klanaa lineage. In the Written Address, Plaintiff stated: “My Lord, it is the case of the plaintiff that Nikoitse We or Klanaa family is one of the eight families or quarters of Teshie Krobo. The Teshie Administrative and Cultural Practices authored by E. Ago Kwei, E. Adzei Annang and T. Adjei Bekoe at chapter 7 page 3 of the said book said the following: ‘The population of Krobo quarter appears to be even more mixed than that of Kle. It consists of people who claim direct descent from Numo Okang Nmashie regarded as the founder of Teshie. It also consists of immigrants from Nungua as represented by Odaiteitse We as well as people from Ga Nmashie origin namely members of Klan Naa. Krobo consists of eight principal houses: Nii Klu Din We, Nii Otwe Tetteh We, Abadanse We, Klan Naa or Nikoitse We, Dade We, Kweija Mansa We, Afutu We and Odaiteitse We.’” [38]. Further contention arises over the nature and ownership of the Klan deity. The Plaintiff asserts that the deity specifically belongs to the Nikoitse We Klanaa family, whereas the Defendant argues that it belongs to the entire Teshie community, with the Plaintiff’s lineage acting only as caretakers rather than exclusive custodians. While both parties agree on the existence and role of the Wulomo, they differ as to how the Wulomo is selected and the identity of the authority under which he serves. The Plaintiff claims the deity itself selects the Wulomo and that he, as the head of Nikoitse We Klanaa, facilitated the current Wulomo’s installation. The Defendant counters that the appointment requires the consent and customary recognition of the Head of the larger Klanaa family, and effectively challenges the Plaintiff’s claim to headship. Analysis and Resolution of the Consolidated Issues [39]. The Court has meticulously assessed the pleadings, witness statements, oral testimonies, documentary evidence and written submissions presented by both parties. The central questions Page 18 of 29 revolve around lineage, headship and property rights within the Teshie community. Specifically, the Court must determine whether there exists a distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family, separate from the widely recognized “Klanaa” family of Teshie, and if so, which party legitimately leads that family. The Plaintiff claims headship of a purportedly distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family, whereas the Defendant asserts the existence of a single unified Klanaa family—of which the Plaintiff’s lineage (commonly known as the “Nikoi” or “Nikoitse” section) is merely one segment—and maintains that the Defendant is the rightful Head. This determination involves applying the established principles of Ghanaian customary law and evidentiary standards. It also draws on the previously decided cases involving the Klanaa family, authoritative legal precedents cited by Counsel and revealing portions of oral testimony extracted during cross-examination. [40]. The Court would reiterate that the party who makes a factual assertion—such as the Plaintiff’s claim of a separate “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family—bears the initial burden of proof. See Majolagbe v Larbi [1959] GLR 190 at 192: Existence and Identity of the Families (a) Whether there exists a Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie, and if so, whether the Plaintiff is its lawful Head The Plaintiff relied primarily on oral tradition, references to a deity named “Klan,” and an administrative publication on Teshie’s cultural practices to assert that “Nikoitse We Klanaa” is a separate family unit. However, the Defendant produced substantial contrary evidence— family record books, funeral notices and crucially, previous Court judgments (Exhibits 2 and 2A)—which demonstrates a longstanding recognition of one unified Klanaa family. These documents consistently fail to acknowledge any separate “Nikoitse We Klanaa” entity. The persuasive weight of the Defendant’s evidence was tested during cross-examination of the Plaintiff and his Witness (PW1). On 13th June 2023, the Plaintiff himself made admissions that undermined his claim when cross examined by Counsel for Defendant: Page 19 of 29 Q: You know there is a family called Klanaa of Teshie Krobo? A: Yes, my Lord. Before Klanaa there was Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa. Q: Do you want the Court to believe that the Klanaa Family is the same as the Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa? A: That is so, my Lord. The entire household is the Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa. Klanaa was the name of the deity. Here, the Plaintiff conflated “Klanaa” and “Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa,” and failed to produce any independent source or documentary acknowledgement of “Nikoitse We Klanaa” as a distinct family. He did not cite a single instance where deceased members of this alleged separate family were laid in state anywhere other than the recognized Klanaa family house. [41]. This deficiency became more apparent when PW1 was confronted with funeral notices bearing names like “Koteitso Dzani,” traditionally associated with the Plaintiff’s lineage. This is what transpired during his cross examination by Counsel for Defendant: Q: I suggest to you that names such as Koteitso and Ashalley are names of members of the Nikoi Tse We Klanaa families, I suggest to you? A: That is so my Lord. Q: I also suggest to you that deceased persons such as Koteitso and Ashalley are laid in state in the Klanaa Family house? A: That is so my Lord. PW1’s admission that these individuals—associated with the Plaintiff’s claimed distinct lineage—were laid in state at the Klanaa family house firmly negates the existence of a separate Nikoitse We Klanaa family and its own house. This aligns with the principle from Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 at 373 (Denning J.), that the Court must decide on the balance of probabilities. Here, the scales tip decisively against the Plaintiff’s claim. (b) Whether the Klanaa family of Teshie is the same as the Nikoitse We Klanaa family of Teshie Page 20 of 29 [42]. All evidence, including the Plaintiff’s own admissions, support the conclusion that no distinct Nikoitse We Klanaa family exists. The Plaintiff’s lineage is simply one section— commonly referred to as Nikoi or Nikoitse—within the single Klanaa family. Counsel for the Defendant correctly argued that the Plaintiff failed to adduce corroborative evidence, consistent with Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 883, which reiterates the need for credible evidence to establish factual assertions. Previous Judicial Determinations The Defendant’s case draws strength from earlier judgments involving the Klanaa family. In Suit No. A9/130/2010, the District Court concluded: “I find that the house in dispute belongs to the Klanaa Family of Teshie, Accra.” No mention was made of any “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family. On appeal, the High Court in Suit No. GJ/104/2016 affirmed this decision: “The facts of this case… indicate without doubt that the property in question was family property… The Court therefore finds no reason to vary the trial Court’s decision that the property was indeed family property.” These judicial precedents are consistent with the concept that recognized family units in Teshie are traditionally known and acknowledged by the community and courts. Had “Nikoitse We Klanaa” existed as a separate entity, it would likely have surfaced in these earlier litigations, it did not. (c) Whether the Defendant is the Lawful Head of the Klanaa Family [43]. Supported by the previous judgments, the Defendant established a lineage of recognized heads of the Klanaa family. Funeral announcements (Exhibits 1C, 1D) and the District Court judgment in Suit No. A9/130/2010, affirmed on Appeal, show that the family property was managed and protected under a recognized Head of the Klanaa family. The High Court, in confirming the judgment, noted that the family acted through its “recognized Head of Family.” Page 21 of 29 The Plaintiff, by contrast, could not name a single predecessor-in-title to the headship he claims, nor show any instance of exercising headship functions accepted by the community. Per Zambrama v Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 CA and In re Ashalley Botwe Lands: Adjetey Agbosu v Kotey [2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 685, the burden of producing evidence may shift, but ultimately the Plaintiff’s failure to produce convincing proof of his headship dooms that claim. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Defendant lawfully holds the position of Head of the Klanaa family. (d) Whether Kuokor Agyeman and Numo Okang Nmashie had a child named Nii Afutu [44]. This historical detail is insufficiently substantiated and does not affect the main determination. Even if such a child existed, it would not negate the unified structure of the Klanaa family established by more pertinent evidence. (e) Whether the Klanaa Family was founded by Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Panto The previous judgments and oral testimonies consistently reference these progenitors as instrumental in establishing the Klanaa family. The Plaintiff tendered no contrary authoritative source. Thus, the Court accepts their foundational role. For sake of emphasis the Court deems it prudent and expedient to quote excerpts from the oral testimonies referenced in the District Court judgment (Suit No. A9/130/2010) that highlight the foundational role of Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Boye Panto in establishing the Klanaa family. These statements, given under oath during trial, were recorded in the judgment and stand as part of the evidentiary record in this suit. In the said (Suit No. A9/130/2010) the Plaintiff’s Lawful Attorney and Witnesses testified before the District Court that the disputed house—integral to the Klanaa family’s existence and identity—was originally built by two brothers regarded as progenitors of the family. The District Court’s judgment captures this testimony as follows: “PW1 said he is a great grandchild of Nii Boye Owusu, and that he was born and bred in one of the two (2) rooms built by Nii Boye Owusu. He lived there until he built his own house and moved out in 1965. This room he built has presently been rented to someone else by the Page 22 of 29 Defendant. PW1 said as the house was originally built by the progenitors of the Klanaa Family, Nii Boye Panto and Nii Boye Owusu, who are currently survived by their great grandchildren, the house has become a Klanaa Family house.” In this portion of PW1’s testimony, he directly attributes the original construction of the family house to the two brothers, effectively identifying them as foundational ancestors of the Klanaa family. Another Witness in the said suit before the District Court (PW2) corroborated PW1’s assertions, and this further solidified the narrative that the Klanaa family stems from the pioneering efforts of these two ancestors. This is what the District Court judgment stated: “PW2 corroborated the statements of PW1 and added that Defendant’s mother’s half-brothers, who are acknowledged members of the Klanaa Family, ever lived in the house. By so doing, PW2 reinforced the historical account that the original builders—Nii Boye Owusu and Nii Boye Panto—laid the foundation for what is now recognized as the Klanaa Family property.” (f) Whether Numo Okofio, Alleged Founder of Nikoitse We Klanaa, Was a Brother to Kuokor Agyeman With the Court having determined that no separate Nikoitse We Klanaa family exists, this issue is moot. (g) Whether a “Nii Adjei” Section Exists and the Plaintiff’s Descent from Numo Joshua [45]. Evidence, including family records (Exhibits 3 series), shows that the Klanaa family historically consists of at least two main sections—Nikoi (Plaintiff’s section) and Nii Adjei (Defendant’s section)—living harmoniously under one family umbrella. Even if the Plaintiff descends from a stranger, Numo Joshua, integrated into the family compound, this does not create a new family. It only confirms that various lineages have merged into the unified Klanaa family over time. Page 23 of 29 From the Defendant’s Witness Statement (ISAAC AHIAKWE BOTCHWAY), admitted as evidence-in-chief at trial - On the Existence of the “Nii Adjei” and “Nikoi” Sections he stated at Paragraph 20: “The Plaintiff is a member of the Klanaa Family but belongs to the other constituent section or unit of the Klanaa Family, which is the ‘Nikoi’ section of the Klanoa Family, the Defendant’s section being the ‘Nii Adjei’ section.” Here, the Defendant explicitly acknowledges that the Plaintiff’s lineage is the “Nikoi” section, while the Defendant’s own lineage is the “Nii Adjei” section—both forming parts of a single, unified Klanaa family. On the Plaintiff’s Descent from Numo Joshua (a Stranger Integrated into the Family): Thus at Paragraph 23 he testified “The Plaintiff is a descendent of Numo Joshua who was a stranger given a place at Klan naa, and not part of the family of Boi Owusu or the patriarch Numo Oknang Nmashie.” [46]. From evidence on record, there is no indication that the Plaintiff successfully refuted or contradicted the Defendant’s testimony regarding the existence of the “Nii Adjei” and “Nikoi” sections and the Plaintiff’s descent from Numo Joshua. Throughout the trial proceedings, the Plaintiff’s primary contention was to establish the existence of a distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family and his headship thereof. However, he did not provide direct documentary evidence or witness testimony that effectively challenged the Defendant’s narrative of a unified Klanaa family composed of multiple sections, including the Nikoi (Plaintiff’s) and Nii Adjei (Defendant’s) sections. Nor did the Plaintiff present credible, contrary evidence to disprove the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s lineage descended from a stranger, Numo Joshua, who had been integrated into the Klanaa family. [47]. While the Plaintiff attempted to rely on oral history and references to a deity and cultural publications, these efforts did not specifically or convincingly negate the Defendant’s claims about the family’s structure and the Plaintiff’s ancestral origins. Cross-examinations also failed to elicit any admissions from the Defendant or his witnesses that would undermine their account. Likewise, no portion of the Plaintiff’s testimony or that of his witness directly contested Page 24 of 29 the Defendant’s factual assertions about the “Nii Adjei” and “Nikoi” sections or the role of Numo Joshua in the Plaintiff’s lineage. In essence, the Defendant’s testimony on these points stood largely uncontroverted by the Plaintiff at trial. Ancestral Property and Ritual Practices (a) Whether the Hall and Chamber for Laying Deceased Was Built by Numo Joshua [48]. Even if Numo Joshua built some rooms, the entire family—both Nikoi and Nii Adjei sections—uses the single Klanaa family house for funerals and rites. The Plaintiff’s Counsel highlighted the importance of documentary proof, but none was produced to show a separate Nikoitse We Klanaa property. (b) Separate Fetish Priest and Place for Laying the Dead The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s faction had its own shrine. Yet cross-examination and evidence showed that deceased from the Plaintiff’s lineage were also laid at the same Klanaa family house. When Plaintiff was cross examined by Counsel for Defendant this is what transpired: Q: I also suggest to you that there is no Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa Family. A: My Lord there is a family by name Nii Kwei Tse We Family. Q: I further suggest to you that there is no Family House by name Nii Kwei Tse We at Teshie. A: My Lord I disagree. My Lord Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa has been in existence since time immemorial and it has been documented. Q: I put it to you that because there is no family or family house by name Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa you cannot bring the documents you referred to, to this Court. A: My Lord that is not true. My Lord the Defendants are saying that I am not from Teshie and they brought document to that effect and later on they brought another document that I am from Teshie. Q: Do you know the Head of Klanaa around the years 2012/2013 thereabout? A: Yes my Lord I know him. Page 25 of 29 Q: Mention his name to this Court. A: Nii Boye Owusu. Q: I suggest to you that Nii Adjerteyfio Nyampo was the Head of Klanaa in year 2012/2013. A: That is not true. We don’t give names such as Adjerteyfio in our house. Q: Do you know one Clement Kotei Neequaye also known as Roger? A: Yes my Lord. He is a younger sibling. We are both from Nii Kwei Tse We Klanaa. Q: I suggest to you that you never installed Numo Klan Wulomo in a capacity as Head of Klanaa. A: Yes I have not installed Numo Klan Wulomo. When it comes to the installation is it the deity that picks or installs someone as the Wulomo. Q: I suggest to you that you don’t have any evidence at all to buttress your mere statements in your Witness Statement. A: My Lord that is not true. No evidence emerged of a separate, exclusive shrine. As established in Majolagbe v Larbi, mere repetition of assertions cannot create new facts. Given that the Defendant is part of the unified Klanaa family, and not an external faction, he and his section are fully entitled to use the family house for funerals and meetings. The Plaintiff’s suggestion that they act merely by permission stands contradicted by longstanding practice and documentary proof. (c) Joint Ownership of “Nikoitse We Klanaa” House [49]. Since the Court finds no distinct Nikoitse We Klanaa family or house, the question of joint ownership is moot. The collective ancestral property belongs to the Klanaa family as a whole. (d) Defendant’s Entitlement to Hold Funerals and Meetings at the Family House Page 26 of 29 As an integral part of the unified family, the Defendant’s lineage is fully entitled to use the Klanaa family house. The Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Defendant’s faction requires permission is unsupported by evidence and contradicts longstanding practices recognized by the courts. The Defendant’s Counsel confronted PW1 with the fact that deceased individuals from the Plaintiff’s supposed lineage, bearing names indicative of the Nikoi (Nikoitse) section, were laid in state at the Klanaa family house. The exchange below from cross examination of PW1 by Counsel for Defendant confirms the communal and established usage of the house by various sections of the family, including the Defendant’s lineage, without any mention of needing permission. Q (Counsel for Defendant to PW1): I suggest to you that names such as Koteitso and Ashalley are names of members of the Nikoi Tse We Klanaa families, I suggest to you? A (PW1): That is so my Lord. Q: I also suggest to you that deceased persons such as Koteitso and Ashalley are laid in state in the Klanaa Family house? A: That is so my Lord. This admission by PW1 establishes that laying deceased family members in state at the Klanaa family house is a customary practice shared by all sections, including the Defendant’s. Nothing in this testimony indicates that the Defendant’s lineage must seek or has ever sought permission to hold these rites. [50]. Throughout the trial proceedings, the Plaintiff failed to produce any direct evidence or testimony to substantiate the claim that the Defendant’s faction required his permission to use the family house. Neither the Plaintiff’s witness statements nor cross-examination yielded any acknowledgments from the Defendant’s side, or by neutral evidence, that such permission was ever requested or granted. Funeral notices tendered in evidence (Exhibits 1C, 1D) and prior court judgments all portray the Klanaa family house as the central, recognized location for conducting funerals and family meetings. These documents list Heads of Family from the Page 27 of 29 Defendant’s lineage organizing and superintending funerals without any reference to obtaining consent from another faction. The consistent recognition of the Defendant’s line in these notices as authoritative and engaged in these functions at the family house strongly implies that their usage of the property is a matter of right rooted in custom and family tradition. Authority and Appointment of the Wulomo [51]. The Plaintiff argued that the deity alone picks the Wulomo without the head’s involvement. However, no evidence of such a deviation from customary norms was presented. Given that previous judgments recognized a single family head overseeing family affairs, it follows that the current Defendant, as Head, holds customary oversight over spiritual appointments. The Plaintiff’s failure to prove otherwise is consistent with the general rule that he who alleges must prove. Conclusion [52]. Having painstakingly reviewed the evidence, the law, and the previous judicial precedents, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family separate from the Klanaa family of Teshie. The Plaintiff’s claim to headship of such a separate family is similarly not proven. The overwhelming evidence, including previous court judgments, funeral notices, family records, and candid admissions under cross- examination, support the Defendant’s position that the Klanaa family is one, unified entity composed of various sections, including the Plaintiff’s lineage. The Defendant, having succeeded to the headship recognized and affirmed by the community and earlier courts, stands as the lawful Head of the Klanaa family of Teshie. [53]. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: The Plaintiff’s reliefs as set out in his Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim are hereby refused. In particular: a. The declaration that the Plaintiff is the recognized current head of the “Nikoitse We family of Teshie” is dismissed, as no distinct “Nikoitse We Klanaa” family exists. Page 28 of 29 b. The declaration that the Defendant and his faction have their own separate family house at Teshie Klanaa different from the Plaintiff’s is dismissed, as there is only one Klanaa family house. c. The declaration that the Defendant and his Adjei faction are not part of the Plaintiff’s alleged “Nikoitse We family” of Teshie Klanaa is dismissed, since the Defendant’s lineage forms part of the single Klanaa family, and no separate Nikoitse We Klanaa family was proven to exist. d. Any other relief sought by the Plaintiff is similarly refused. On the contrary, the Court finds merit in the Defendant’s counterclaim on preponderance of probabilities. The Defendant has successfully demonstrated a continuous recognition and acceptance of a single Klanaa family and his headship thereof. It is therefore: a. declared that the Klanaa family of Teshie is one unified family, encompassing both the Plaintiff’s lineage and the Defendant’s lineage. b. declared that the Defendant is the lawful Head of the Klanaa family of Krobo, Teshie and c. declared that there is no family known as “Nikoitse We Klanaa” separate from the Klanaa family. d. A perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining the Plaintiff from holding himself out, or allowing himself to be held out, as Head of Klanaa Family of Krobo, Teshie. Costs: Counsel for Defendant acknowledging the familiar relationship and the need for fraternity and harmony has waived cost. So I make no order as to cost. H/L. JUSTICE DR. ERNEST OWUSU-DAPAA (JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL) Page 29 of 29