DODU VRS. DONKOR (A11/110/23) [2024] GHADC 547 (12 December 2024)

IN THE KOTOBABI DISTRICT COURT 1, NEAR THE KOTOBABI CLUSTER OF SCHOOLS, ACCRA HELD ON THURSDAY 12TH DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER WORSHIP MAAME YAA A. KUSI-MENSAH (MS.), MAGISTRATE SUIT NO: A11/110/23 EDWARD MAXWELL NII DARKU DODU - PLAINTIFF (Suing in his capacity as the head of the Dodu Family And in his personal capacity as the brother of Deceased) DIGITAL ADDRESS GA-316-5305 LARTEHBIOKOSHIE, ACCRA VRS. CYNTHIA DONKOR - DEFENDANT KOKOMLEMLE ACCRA PARTIES: Plaintiff present Defendant present COUNSEL: Nana Ama Commey (Ms.) holding the brief of Kusi Patrick Adu Amankwah Esq for Plaintiff present Francis Ekow Addams Esq. for Defendant present JUDGMENT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action on 21st June, 2023 at the Kaneshie District Court 2 seeking the following reliefs: 1. An order for the revocation of the Letters of Administration granted the Defendant in respect of the estate of the late Felix Nii Dodu Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 1 2. A declaration that Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu, the Plaintiff, is the person entitled to the grant of the Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the late Felix Nii Ofei Dodu. 3. General damages 4. Costs including legal fees Defendant filed her defence and counter-claim on 27th July, 2023 in which she denied the averments of Plaintiff and further counter-claimed for the following reliefs: a. A declaration that Defendant was customarily married to the deceased. b. A declaration that as a surviving spouse, Defendant has the capacity to take Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased husband. c. A declaration that both Defendant and Plaintiff be made administrators of the estate of deceased d. Costs incidental to this suit including legal costs Subsequently, Plaintiff filed his reply to the statement of defence and counterclaim on 13th September, 2023. Following the close of pleadings, parties were directed to file their respective witness statements and that of the witnesses they intended to call. Plaintiff filed his witness statement on 28th November, 2023 together with that of his three witnesses. Defendant also filed both her witness statement and that of her sole witness on 5th October, 2023. Case Management was then concluded by the Kaneshie District Court 2 on 28th November, 2023 and dates for trial were set in April, 2024. However, before trial could take place, the case was transferred from my sister at the Kaneshie District Court to this Court in January, 2024 to continue with the hearing by order of the Honourable Chief Justice. The proceedings and orders of the previous court were thereafter adopted by this Court on 13th June, 2024 and dates for trial were set leading to the conduct of a full trial which concluded on 8th October, 2024. Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 2 FACTS The undisputed facts that have led to the institution of this case are that the Plaintiff herein is the older brother of one Felix Nii Ofei Dodu who died intestate on 16th July, 2022. The said Felix Nii Ofei Dodu did not have any children but cohabited with Defendant herein for a number of years until his death. Following his death, Defendant herein applied for letters of administration (LA) to clothe her with the legal authority to administer the estate of deceased and same was granted to her by the Kaneshie District Court. However, Plaintiff upon discovery of the grant of LA to Defendant, instituted the instant action on the basis that Defendant herein lacked the capacity to have applied for the LA in the first place since she was not married to the Deceased nor was she a member of their family. Defendant on the other hand has fiercely resisted this assertion and insisted that she and the Deceased were customarily married and cohabited as a married couple until Deceased’s death in 2022. She therefore maintains that she is entitled to the LA of the deceased’s estate or at the very least to be a co-administrator with Plaintiff herein. Plaintiff’s case From the writ and statement of claim and the evidence adduced, according to Plaintiff, he is the head of the nuclear family of the late Felix Nii Ofei Dodu (Deceased) and the older brother to Deceased. Plaintiff states that Deceased died intestate without a wife or child surviving him but was however survived by two brothers only. Plaintiff asserts that being one of the surviving brothers of Deceased, it is he (Plaintiff) who has the rightful capacity upon Deceased’s passing to apply for and be granted the Letters of Administration (LA) in respect of Deceased’s estate. Plaintiff also asserts emphatically that Defendant herein was never married to the Deceased during Deceased’s lifetime. Plaintiff states further that he conducted a search in the registry of the Kaneshie District Court on 5th June, 2023 only to discover to his dismay that the LA for Deceased’s estate had been granted to Defendant on 1st March 2023 without the knowledge or consent of Deceased’s family. Plaintiff argues in that regard therefore that the LA granted to Defendant herein was obtained fraudulently. He outlines the particulars of fraud as follows: Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 3 a. Defendant with intention to deceive the Court for the purposes of obtaining Letters of Administration and ultimately getting same granted, misrepresented to the Court that she was the only surviving spouse of the deceased knowing very well that the Deceased was not married to her or anybody else; b. Defendant in her affidavit in support of the application for Letters of Administration misrepresented to the Court that there was a family meeting where it was agreed that Defendant be the person to apply for Letters of Administration knowing very well that no such meeting ever occurred; c. Defendant in support of her application for Letters of Administration attached an affidavit from one Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo purporting to be the head of family of the Dodu family when in fact the said Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo is not a member of the Dodu family and certainly not the head of family. Flowing from this, Plaintiff’s case ultimately is that the LA granted to Defendant was granted under false misrepresentations to the court, and should Defendant continue to remain the lawful Administrator to Deceased’s estate, she would unlawfully administer the estate to the detriment of the proper beneficiaries unless restrained by this Honourable Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff mounted the instant action seeking the reliefs outlined above. Defendant’s case On her part, Defendant claims emphatically that she is the surviving spouse of the late Felix Nii Ofei Dodu (Deceased). According to Defendant, she and Deceased began cohabiting in 2015 but had been customarily married since 27th February, 2016 after the presentation of Schnapps by the Deceased to the Defendant’s family. She indicates that they lived together as husband and wife until Deceased’s untimely death on 16th July, 2022. Defendant further emphasised that she and Deceased did many things together such as attending funerals together, going to the market together and operating a Lacoste business together during the course of them living together as husband and wife. Defendant is further emphatic that Plaintiff herein has always been hostile towards her and as a result of this, picked countless fights with Deceased during Deceased’s lifetime urging him to Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 4 divorce her (Defendant). She also states that Plaintiff has expelled her from the matrimonial home since the death of Deceased since he and her do not see eye to eye. She goes on to deny all the particulars of fraud and insists that being the surviving spouse of Deceased she is lawfully entitled to the grant of LA. In further denial of the allegations of fraud, Defendant states that it was Deceased who introduced her to Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo as the head of family contrary to Plaintiff’s denial of the said Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo as the head of family. Defendant states that she believed Deceased and therefore contacted this Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo as the head of family after Deceased’s death during her application for LA. Defendant’s case in summary therefore is that she is the only surviving spouse of Deceased and is accordingly entitled to the grant of LA of Deceased’s estate. Consequently, she also counterclaims against the Plaintiff for her own reliefs already outlined above. In his response to the counterclaim, Plaintiff reiterates that Defendant is not and was never married to Deceased either customarily or under ordinance. He states that Deceased’s family were not part of any ceremony involving the presentation of any customary drink to Defendant’s family, and in accordance with the customs of Deceased’s family, the family of the man contracting the marriage must be involved in the presentation of the drinks failing which no such marriage is validly contracted or recognised. Plaintiff again emphatically denies any Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo as being the head of family and added that this Alex Victor Nii Amoo Otoo was not even a member of the Dodu family to talk less of being the family head for which reason Deceased could never have introduced such a stranger to Defendant as their family head as Defendant is claiming. Plaintiff in further denial of Defendant’s claims states that Defendant never cohabited with Deceased as Deceased lived on family property for which reason there was no need for her to have been expelled from same. In further support of this assertion, Plaintiff claims that even during the lifetime of Deceased, Deceased together with Plaintiff and his friends even had the locks of the house changed to discourage Defendant from her incessant an unannounced visits. Ultimately, Plaintiff is emphatic that Defendant has no legally conceivable defence and is therefore not entitled to her counterclaim. ISSUES Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 5 From the pleadings and facts as outlined above, four issues are joined between the parties for resolution by this Court: 1) Whether Defendant was the wife of Felix Nii Ofei Dodu (Deceased); 2) Whether Letters of Administration ought to have been granted to Defendant?; 3) Whether the Letters of Administration granted to Defendant ought to be revoked?; and 4) Whether Letters of Administration ought to be granted to both Defendant and Plaintiff? 1) Whether Defendant was the wife of Felix Nii Ofei Dodu (Deceased)? In Ghana there are three types of marriages that are recognised by law: 1) Ordinance marriage; 2) Customary marriage and 3) Mohammedan marriage. Although all three of these types of marriage are legally recognised, they each have their own peculiarities and characteristics which must be adhered to in order to be valid. In the instant case, Defendant vehemently insists she was customarily married to Deceased and therefore his legal spouse while Plaintiff just as strongly denies this claim and states that Defendant was neither married customarily or in any other way to Deceased. The status of Defendant at the time of Deceased’s death, is a major issue of contention because the resolution of this question will inevitably affect the resolution of the other three issues. The reason is obvious: if Defendant was indeed the spouse of Deceased at the time of his death, she will undoubtedly be legally entitled as a spouse to his estate. If however, Defendant was not a spouse then she will have no such legal entitlement. The law is clear that parties cannot come to court and expect their claims to be believed simply because they say so, without any other proof. The requirement for sufficient proof of one’s claims was eloquently stated by her Ladyship Adinyira JSC in Don Ackah vs. Pergah Transport Ltd [2010] SCGLR 728 where it was stated: “The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things (often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact…. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree.” Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 6 Similarly, in Klah vs. Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd [2012] SCGLR 1139 the Supreme Court, referencing the locus classicus case of Majolagbe vs. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 with approval stated: “Where a party makes an averment that is capable of proof in some positive way e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts [and] instances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances from which the court can satisfy itself that what he avers is true.” (emphasis mine) See also Okudzeto Ablakwa (No. 2) vrs. Attorney-General and Anor [2012] 2 SCGLR 845 @ 847 regarding what is expected of a person who goes to court and makes an allegation. Flowing from the above, the question that remains is whose assertion of the legal status of Defendant do the facts and evidence support? Is it the Plaintiff’s assertion? Or the Defendant’s assertion? Since it is Defendant who is claiming that she was customarily married to and cohabited with Deceased until his death, the onus lay on her to adduce evidence in proof of this assertion in accordance with sections 10, 11 and 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Thus, in support of her assertion, Defendant tendered in evidence Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to her witness statement. She also called one witness in support of her claims- one Comfort Akrong. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 tendered in by Defendant are all pictures. Exhibit 1 is a picture of Defendant herself purportedly taken in Deceased’s home; exhibit 2 is a picture of Defendant and Deceased allegedly on the day of their customary marriage on 27th February 2016; and exhibit 3 is a picture of Defendant’s daughter allegedly in the home of Deceased. A careful perusal of Exhibits 1 and 3 do not in any way reveal or corroborate the fact that these pictures were indeed taken in Deceased’s home. There is nothing telling on the face of the images tendered that indicate undoubtedly that those pictures were taken in any aspect of the Deceased’s home. In actual fact the pictures could have been taken in anyone’s home. What is to show from the pictures that it was Deceased’s house and nobody else’s? Absolutely nothing. Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 7 Even assuming without admitting that these pictures were in fact taken in the home of Deceased, that is not necessarily any confirmation that Defendant was married to or cohabited with Deceased. Anyone can take pictures in another person’s home and even do so on multiple occasions. Will that mean that such a person lives in that person’s home or is married to that person? Certainly not. It would be quite absurd to conclude that a person is resident or cohabits or is married to another person merely because pictures were taken in that person’s home without any further evidence to support such a finding of marriage or cohabitation. If that were possible, a homeless man could pose on the corridors of the Jubilee House and then turn around and claim residence. Defendant is the one who has insisted that she had been cohabiting with Deceased in his home for seven years - that is close to a decade. She further insists that she was customarily married to Deceased from 2016 until his death in 2022. Certainly, as a wife or if not even a wife, then as someone who lived for such a long time in a home as a cohabitant, Defendant should have had access to some utility bills, payment of property rates or such other indications affirming cohabitation and/or residence, yet she did not exhibit a single one of these. It is also established from the facts that Deceased was involved in a car accident in July, 2022 but did not die immediately- rather he was in a coma for almost 2 weeks before he died (see proceedings dated 23rd July, 2024). So, it is quite strange to the mind of this Court that being his alleged wife, Defendant could not exhibit a single payment of any of the hospital or medical bills of Deceased while he was on admission. Is it the case that she did not visit her “husband” in the hospital even once? For someone who has continuously given the impression that she and Deceased were in a committed relationship and “took most decisions ourselves without input or interference” even to the point where it was Deceased alone who went to do the alleged knocking ceremony (see proceedings dated 7th October, 2024), I find it very difficult indeed to understand why Defendant would not visit her “husband” in the hospital while he was on admission if Defendant was truly married to and cohabited with Deceased for seven whole years prior to his death. Indeed, considering the way she emphasised the consensus of minds between herself and Deceased, it is difficult to rationalise why Defendant failed to turn up even once during Deceased’s hospitalisation in her capacity as a lawful wife. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from such conduct is that Defendant was in fact not a spouse of Deceased at all and knew this for a fact herself. That is why she made no attempt to be involved in or partake in any decision concerning Deceased’s hospitalisation prior to his death. Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 8 Furthermore, exhibit 2 purports to be a picture taken on 27th February, 2016- the date of the alleged customary marriage between Defendant and Deceased. Although I must admit I am no expert in photography, it appears even to my layman’s eye that this picture has been photoshopped. It is Defendant’s claim that Exhibit 2 was taken on 27th February 2016 after the presentation of schnapps by Deceased to her family. Indeed, her exact statement from paragraph 7 of her witness statement is reproduced as follows: “I testify that my deceased husband presented Schnapps to my family on 27th February, 2016 after I have cohabited with deceased for just a year. Attached hereto (is) a copy of a picture taken after the presentation of the Schnapps and marked ‘Exhibit B’”. (It is noted that this ‘Exhibit B’ was remarked as ‘Exhibit 2’ at Case Management stage on 28th November, 2023 at the Kaneshie District Court) Even to the ordinary non-expert eye however, it is evident that the images in Exhibit 2 were taken from two different original sources and edited next to each other against a wholly different background. This can be seen when one scrutinizes Exhibit 2 carefully and looks at the edges of the images and the background which appear to be artificially blurred and smoothened out. The picture of Deceased has also quite cleverly been juxtaposed against that of Defendant to give the impression that they took that picture together. However, there is a certain awkwardness and contrast even in how the parties are standing next to each other in Exhibit 2 which is quite unnatural from the way a picture of two people actually taken together ordinarily looks. All of these elements combined are indications of a doctored or photoshopped image. From all indication, the picture in Exhibit 2 was not taken of the same people at the same time and on the same occasion as Defendant is urging this Court to believe. Even if I am mistaken, since I have conceded I am no expert in such matters of photography, and Exhibit 2 has not been doctored and is truly a picture taken by the parties on the day of their alleged customary marriage, I believe there ought to be more than one picture taken of that day which could have been tendered in further evidence by Defendant. Defendant is insisting that the alleged ceremony that took place was the customary rites recognised by her family. During cross- examination she stated: Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 9 “ Q: In paragraph 4, you stated that you co-habited with the Deceased and you have been living as husband and wife from November, 2015 till his death in 2022. Are you saying that you were married to the Deceased? A: That is so. I have an explanation. On some occasions I have left the matrimonial home due to intense disagreement between Deceased and myself. There has even been an occasion I had to leave the home of Deceased naked due to the threatening conduct of Plaintiff. On the occasions I have left, it is my deceased husband who will follow up and come and plead for me to return home. Q: When was the wedding Madam Cynthia Donkor? A: Please we did not do any wedding. When I met Deceased I told him I am mature so he decided to see my family at Dome Kwabenya. On 27th February, 2016 he came to do the knocking. One of my aunties told him I am the daughter of a queen mother so if he does not come and do the marriage rites she will let me leave the house. So on the said 27th February, 2016 he came to perform the rites recognized by my family to show that if they are looking for me I am with him.” (See proceedings dated 7th October, 2024) If what Defendant is claiming is indeed so and it was a customary marriage ceremony or rite that was performed, it is certainly strange that there aren’t multiple images and videos covering such a joyful event as pertains to Ghanaian custom. The absence of any footage of this ceremony aside, Defendant herself further testified that it was only her own family members who were present at this alleged ceremony. Yet Defendant failed to call a single member of her own family to give evidence that indeed such a ceremony took place on 27th February, 2016. I am therefore not convinced that any such marriage ceremony took place between Defendant and Deceased on 27th February 2016. Besides, even if such ceremony did take place, it could certainly not have been a customary marriage which would indeed make Defendant a lawful wife- at best any such alleged ceremony that took place would be the knocking ceremony which is recognised in most tribes as a mere introductory phase and precursor to the actual marriages rites. I am of this view because, in formal customary Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 10 marriage rites in Ghana, it is not acceptable in any Ghanaian tribe for a man alone by himself, and without a single family member from his side accompanying him to contract any kind of formal customary marriage, because Ghanaian customary marriage is viewed as a union between two families and not two individuals. This position was emphasised in Yaotey vs. Quaye [1961] GLR 573-584 where Ollenu J stated as follows: “Now, one peculiar characteristic of our system of marriage which distinguishes it from the system of marriage in Europe and other places is that it is not just a union of "this man" and "this woman": it is a union of the family of ‘this man’ and the family of ‘this woman’ ”(emphasis mine). In the Yaotey case, it was further acknowledged that apart from the formal customary marriage rites, a customary marriage informally contracted in a number of ways may still be recognised by the courts. One of such informal customary marriages may be where it has been proved by proper evidence that the parties have agreed to and have lived together in the sight of the world as man and wife. In such circumstances, the courts hold that the parties are married according to native custom. However for such an informal marriage to be recognised, “a man and woman who voluntarily agree to live as man and wife for `life', can contract a valid marriage provided that such agreement is expressly made in the presence of credible and respectable witnesses….followed by the man and woman living as husband and wife.” (emphasis mine) (See the Yaotey case supra). It was thus emphasised in the Yaotey case that one of the essentials of a valid customary marriage be it a formal or informal customary marriage is: “(b) (the) consent of the families of the man and the woman to the marriage. Such consent may be implied from the conduct, e.g. acknowledging the parties as man and wife, or accepting drink from the man or his family; and (c) consummation of the marriage, i.e. that the man and the woman are living together in the sight of all the world as man and wife.” (see also Re Caveat By Clara Sackitey: Re Marriage Ordinance, CAP 127 [1962] 1 GLR 180–183). Flowing from this, it may well be therefore that Defendant was under the illusion that her alleged cohabitation with Deceased automatically matured into an informal customary marriage. However, as I have earlier indicated, Defendant failed to adduce the cogent evidence necessary to support even her alleged cohabitation with Deceased. She never provided evidence such as utility bills and the like which normally comes with prolong periods of cohabitation. I again find it curious here that Defendant again did not call on any of her own family members to testify to her alleged cohabitation with Deceased. Especially in light of her own evidence quoted above under cross-examination that Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 11 the rites performed in the presence of her family were to show that if her family members were looking for her, she (Defendant) is with Deceased. Who then could be better to give evidence of this cohabitation than those same members of Defendant’s own family purportedly present during this alleged customary rite ceremony? Instead, the only witness Defendant called to give evidence of this alleged cohabitation is someone who is not even ordinarily resident in the area where Deceased lived prior to his death. The testimony given by Comfort Akrong (DW1) the said witness of Defendant was woefully unsatisfactory to persuade this Court of the existence cohabitation. Under cross-examination DW1 testified: “ Q: Where do you live? A: I reside at Dome. Q: Do you know where Deceased lived during his lifetime? A: Yes my lady Q: Can you tell this Honourable Court where? A: He resided at Asylum Down near the Health Insurance office. Q: Dome and Asylum Down , they are certainly not in the same neighbourhood. A: Yes my lady. It is not the same neighbourhood but I was born and raised in Adabraka and even currently I still own a shop at Adabraka. Q: Again, you would agree with me that Asylum Down and Adabraka are not the same neighbourhood? A: I do agree but Adabraka and Asylum Down are just a walking distance. ” Further onwards, after the end of cross-examination, DW1 had this to say when she was also questioned by this Court: “ By Court: When you say Defendant and Deceased frequented Adabraka community where exactly are you referring to? DW1: My lady around the Presby Ascension Church. That is where our house is located.” By Court: So the only place they used to come to was your house? DW1: To the best of my knowledge they normally come to me in my house to have discussion about their marital issues. Sometimes our discussions take us to the Presby Church. By Court: Apart from your house and the Presby Church, did you used to see Defendant and Deceased in any other place and in the company of other people? Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 12 DW1: Since I do not go out with them I can’t tell if they go out to other places in the community. But they normally would come to me with their issues or pay me a visit. ” From this evidence, it is apparent that DW1 had quite limited interactions with Defendant and Deceased. She did not ever go to their home nor was she ever in any other social gatherings with them to attest to their actual marital status or otherwise. The mere fact that a couple visits another person regularly will not automatically confer on them a marital or cohabitation status. They could simply be boyfriend and girlfriend without being more no matter how long they have been dating. The description of a state of affairs as one thing would not necessarily make that state what it has been described as. For instance, I can refer to a dog as being a cat as much as I like, and I may even be genuinely operating in the belief that a dog is the same thing as a cat; but my calling it so will never change the status of a dog to that of a cat. In the same way, describing a couple as married, and indicating that they come to you with their “marital issues” will not in and of itself make that couple married. Marriage and cohabitation is a matter of fact and law. You are either legally married whether formally or informally in accordance with law and custom or you are not- there is no in- between. And there is nothing from the evidence adduced to convince this Court that the Defendant and Deceased cohabited before all the world or before their community as man and wife for same to be concluded as an informal customary marriage. I am more convinced by the evidence of Plaintiff that Defendant was merely a girlfriend of Deceased at the time of Deceased’s death. Plaintiff has consistently maintained that Defendant was at best one of the girlfriends of Deceased and has never been his wife. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff submitted in evidence Exhibits A, B and C. He also tendered Exhibits D and E through Defendant under cross-examination. Additionally, Plaintiff called three witness- PW1 who was the friend of Deceased; PW2- a business partner and friend to Deceased; and PW3- the head of the extended branch of Deceased’s family. All of these witnesses testified that Defendant was never married to the Deceased nor did they cohabit in Deceased’s home. In particular, PW3 the head of the extended Dodu family testified that Defendant was not part of the prominent women that performed the customary rites of Deceased during his funeral rites. Under cross-examination PW3 had this to say: “ Q: How many women were present during the performance of this traditional rites? A: A whole lot of women were present. Both paternal and maternal of the deceased. Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 13 Q: So there were so many women present, is that so? A: Yes my lady Q: Since you have indicated in court that you don’t know Defendant, there is no way of you knowing whether Defendant was present during the performance of this rite. I put that to you. A: My lady, during that time so many women were present, but four of them from each side, paternal and maternal were presented to me and they will be responsible for bathing the corpse and bring the corpse to me in the family house for the funeral to start. Defendant was unable to discredit this evidence or any of the testimonies of the other witnesses of Plaintiff. A further blow to Defendant’s claims is seen from Exhibits A and C. Exhibit A is the obituary of Deceased. It indicates the Plaintiff and one other man by name James Nii Otoo Dodu as the brothers of Deceased, but Exhibit A is conspicuously silent as to any wife or children of Deceased. Defendant herself corroborated this fact of the relations of Plaintiff indicated on Exhibit A when under cross-examination she acknowledged that Deceased had two brothers-one being the Plaintiff herein and the other being a brother resident in London (see proceedings dated 7th October 2024). Exhibit C is also a picture taken of Deceased’s tombstone when it was unveiled. On the head of the tombstone is the inscription: “In Memory of a Beloved Brother and Uncle Felix Nii Ofei Dodu.” From Exhibit C too, the fact of Deceased’s status as being unmarried is very evidently communicated. Just like the testimonies of Plaintiff and his witnesses, Defendant was again unable to discredit any of this evidence. Coupled with all the above pieces of evidence is the death blow to Defendant’s claims in Exhibit E. Exhibit E is an audio recording between Defendant and one Arizo. The said recording was identified by Defendant as being her voice and was tendered in evidence through her (see proceedings dated 8th October, 2024). This audio recording was in Ga and was translated and transcribed into English by the Ghana Institute of Languages Transbureau. At paragraph 4 of the transcription, Defendant states categorically, “Then he said that he would give me a lawyer, and I asked me (sic) that ‘a lawyer for what? He has not married me yet. He has not married me, so a lawyer for what?’” The context of this conversation was that Defendant and the said Arizo were discussing the death of Deceased which from all indication had happened recently as at the time of the conversation. Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 14 From this detailed analysis of the facts and evidence, I am of the view that on the preponderance of probabilities, Defendant has woefully failed to persuade this Court that she was customarily married to Deceased at the time of his death. She has also failed to persuade this Court that she cohabited with Deceased prior to his death. Thus, I find as a fact that Defendant was not married to Deceased at the time of his death on 16th July, 2022. 2) Whether Letters of Administration ought to have been granted to Plaintiff? 3) Whether the Letters of Administration granted to Defendant ought to be revoked? 4) Whether Letters of Administration ought to be granted to both Defendant and Plaintiff? Regarding the remaining three issues, these will be discussed together. Letters of Administration are granted where a person dies intestate. Under the Intestate Succession law, 1985 (PNDC Law 111), persons who are entitled to benefit from the estate of a deceased person are the surviving spouse, child, parent and family of Deceased. Under Order 31 rule 13 of the District Court Rules, 2009 (CI 59), the priority of persons entitled to the grant of LA are ranked in this order: (a) surviving spouse; (b) surviving children; (c) a surviving parent; (d) customary successor of the deceased Having found as a fact that Defendant was not the lawful wife of the Deceased at the time of his death, then she obviously does not qualify as a surviving spouse to the grant of LA of the estate of Deceased. Neither does she fall under any of the other categories of persons entitled to the grant of LA above. The question of whether Letters of Administration ought to have been granted to Plaintiff is thus easily resolved with a clear no. In emphatic words, LA to Deceased’s estate should not have been granted to Defendant in the first place. Again, since Defendant is neither a spouse nor does she fall under any of the other categories of persons she has no legal entitlement to the grant of Letters of Administration to Deceased’s estate. Accordingly, on the question of whether LA ought to be granted to both Defendant and Plaintiff, Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 15 this Court again resolves this issue in favour of Plaintiff. Meaning that, Defendant having no legal rights herein is not entitled to joint administration with Plaintiff to the Deceased’s estate. Finally on the issue of whether the Letters of Administration granted to Defendant ought to be revoked, the Court finds that not being the surviving spouse of Deceased at the time of his death, Defendant ought not to have been granted the LA to Deceased’s estate in the first place. In Re Agyepong (Decd.); Poku vs. Abosi And Another [1982-83] GLR 254, the court of appeal held that: “Before a grant of letters of administration is revoked the court must be satisfied that there was lack of interest and that the person to whom the grant was made was in fact not entitled to it. The burden of proving fraud is on the party who alleges it. The circumstances surrounding the alleged fraud must be inconsistent with any other view but that of fraud.” The court in the In Re Agyepong case (supra) emphasised further that: “A grant of letters of administration may, however, be revoked if the person to whom it was made was not entitled to it. A grant obtained by fraud, mala fide or by concealing information which should have been disclosed to the court, may also be revoked.” I find as a fact flowing from the in-depth analysis of the facts in this case already outlined above that the Defendant purposely concealed information that ought to have been disclosed to the court before the grant of LA to her on 1st March, 2023. She knew or ought to have known at the time of her application that she was not in fact married to the Deceased and yet she went ahead to at best, hide that fact from the Court, and at worst deliberately fabricate non-existent facts in order to obtain the LA. In either situation I find the elements of fraud have been satisfactorily proven. Thus, I find that the Letters of Administration granted to Defendant on 1st March, 2023 ought to be revoked and same is accordingly revoked. In conclusion, judgment is entered in favour of Plaintiff on all his reliefs. I will award costs of Eight Thousand Ghana Cedis against Defendant. SGD. MAAME YAA A. KUSI-MENSAH (MS). MAGISTRATE Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 16 Edward Maxwell Nii Darku Dodu vs. Cynthia Donkor 17