KUENYEHIA VRS. SOSU (A9/02/2024) [2024] GHADC 659 (15 November 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT ANLOGA IN THE VOLTA REGION ON FRIDAY THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. BEFORE HER WORSHIP REJOICE ASEYE GADAGOE, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO.: A9/02/2024. MRS. MARGARET ADRAH KUENYEHIA HEAD OF DEKOR ADRAH FAMILY OF ANLOGA. C/O MAI-VICTORY GUEST HOUSE, PLAINTIFF WHUTI, VOLTA REGION (GPS: VK-2091-4846) VRS MRS. GLORIA LARYEA SOSU GPS: VK-1622-0862 H/NO. AV 746, SYDNEY STREET, DEFENDANT KPORTORGBE, ANLOGA JUDGMENT: By a writ of summons filed on 19/04/24; the Plaintiff herein sued the Defendant and claimed as follows; 1) “An Order for the ejection of the Defendant from HOUSE NO. AV 742, SYDNEY STREET, KPORTOGBE, ANLOGA. 2) An Order compelling the Defendant to permanently remove from the house her ferocious dogs that she has brought into the above noted house to kill Plaintiff. 3) An Order upon the Defendant to repair all damages to the doors and locks to the house. 4) Costs”. CASE OF PLAINTIFF: 1 The Plaintiff, MRS. MARGARET ADRAH KUENYEHIA, instituted the instant action in her representative capacity as the head of her late father CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH‟s immediate family Plaintiff told the Honourable Court, that the Defendant is her grand-niece. That is, the grand-daughter of her late brother, JOHN SLATER ADRAH. The subject matter of the instant suit is House number: AV 742. GPS: VK-1622-0862, SIDNEY STREET, KPORTOGBE-ANLOGA. The disputed house was the self- acquired property of Plaintiff‟s late father, CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH. In paragraph “8” of Plaintiff‟s witness statement, she stated as follows: “Since 2015, I, as head of the Dekor Adrah family, temporarily granted free accommodation to the Defendant in the family house at Kportoogbe, subject to good conduct and behaviour on Defendant’s part, to enable her find her own place of abode”. This was because; the Defendant was pregnant at the time and needed the assistance of her maternal family for a place to lay her head. Plaintiff stated in paragraphs “9”, “10” and “11” that, soon after Defendant was handed the keys to the disputed house in 2015, the defendant‟s husband started visiting her in the house. Defendant‟s four (4) other children also joined her. Defendant made very bad friends which she brought in hordes into the disputed house and turned the toilet facility into a “Public Toilet‟. Plaintiff stated further from paragraph “16” to “20” of her witness statement, that, the Defendant lacked good conduct, she refused to leave the disputed house, Defendant changed the padlock to the gate to prevent Plaintiff from entering the disputed house, and even brought ferocious Dogs into the house to “maim and kill” Plaintiff. Plaintiff says that the Defendant could only continue enjoying the magnanimity of the Family as a tenant under sufferance, subject to good behaviour, decorum, courtesy and respect for the Head of Family – all of which Defendant lacks. Plaintiff called two (2) witnesses. PW1 was Mr. KAFUI AXOLU, an Auto mechanic. PW1 informed the Honourable court that the defendant came to see his mother in 2015 and narrated a story to the effect that, she had been driven out of where she lived and needed permission to stay with her. 2 PW1„s mother rather sought permission from Plaintiff; and Plaintiff personally handed the keys of their family home to Defendant. He added that, in the beginning, everything was fine until Defendant stopped responding to his greetings. She was no longer maintaining the House and left it unkempt. PW2 was Mr. GERALDO SANTUS. He is a civil Engineer and a Businessman. He stayed in the disputed house with the Defendant from 2015 – 2023. He reported the Defendant to their Landlady (the Plaintiff), MR. KAFUI and KAFUI‟S mother, on different occasions. Their controversies centered on the payment of Electricity bills, that Defendant turned the toilet in the house into a public toilet and messed the place up. Defendant‟s children also messed up the place. She kept toilet in chamber–pots for hours without disposing of them, which pushed Mr. Sanctus to look for alternative means of attending to nature‟s call. In all, the complaints about the Defendant and how she carried herself in the disputed house appeared undesirable. She stopped seeing herself as a mere licensee and assumed outrageous powers. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant, MRS. GLORIA LARYEA SOSU, testified on 10/09/2024. She told the Court that she was pregnant and her younger sister was also pregnant at the same time. Their mother in a bid to separate them asked the Defendant to come back to the disputed house. She added that her husband moves from place to place as a painter and so they do not settle at one place. Again, they were always ejected from their premises. Whilst defendant was under cross-examination from the lawyer for Plaintiff, the following ensued: “Q: You turned the toilet in the house into a public toilet and you and your 3 friends messed the place up. A: That is not true. Q: Your children also messed up the place. They defecated in chamber–pots and it would be there for hours. A: My children make mistakes and PW2’s children also do same. Mr. Santus himself messes up the toilet when he drinks and I clean it up.” For unexplained reasons, the Defendant dwelt on her own mother‟s history of how she was driven out eventually from the same house by her mother‟s own father earlier in time. Defendant‟s grandfather was the late JOHN SLATER ADRAH. Her mother was the late DORIS ADZOTOR ADRAH. The only difference now is that, when it happened to Defendant‟s mother, she run to her uncle, LAWRENCE KWASI ADRAH, for help. Defendant on the other hand, is ready to battle it out with the Plaintiff who happens to be a sister of LAWRENCE KWASI ADRAH, and JOHN SLATER ADRAH. Further, Defendant told the Honourable Court, that, somewhere in or around October, 2022, the Plaintiff‟s husband came and told her NOEL DELA ADRAH, being the younger brother of the Plaintiff, is on retirement. He will therefore be coming to stay in the house. “So I should find a place and pack out but I did not give any response to what he said”. Defendant‟s witness was Madam COMFORT ADRAH (DW). She testified on 28/10/2024. Her role appeared basically to be that of a morale booster. However, after Counsel for Plaintiff painted the raw picture of everything the Plaintiff complained of, she back-tracked and exclaimed that she lives in her own father‟s home but never does any of the things Defendant is alleged to have done. 4 Madam Comfort never saw the ferocious Dogs Defendant brought to the house to ward off the Plaintiff ether. In the end, she told the Defendant her House Toilet is always under lock and key and she keeps the place very neat. Issues for Determination: WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT RESIDES IN THE DISPUTED HOUSE. - HOUSE NUMBER: AV 742. GPS: VK-1622-0862, SIDNEY STREET, KPORTOGBE-ANLOGA-? The Defendant‟s address for service is the same as that of the disputed house. So yes, the defendant still resides in the disputed house. Having established that, the Honourable Court shall recap the circumstances that resulted in the defendant living in the disputed house, and the legal environment she finds herself. Defendant provided some history of the relationship that existed between her late Mother and her late grandfather vis-à-vis the disputed House from paragraph “3‟ of her witness statement. Defendant‟s story is worth reproducing for their relevance to the instant matter. She stated that, her grandfather, JOHN SLATER ADRAH, begat seven issues including her mother DORIS ADZOTOR ADRAH. That Defendant‟s late mother at an adolescent age got pregnant under bizarre circumstances and upon an advice and initiative of her grandparents, her mother moved from Accra to stay in the now disputed house. DORIS ADZOTOR ADRAH gave birth to the Defendant and two other children in the disputed house. A misunderstanding later arose between Defendant‟s mother and her father SLATER, who was living in the disputed house with Doris. As a result JOHN SLATER ADRAH sacked his own daughter, Doris, from the disputed house. Doris reported the matter to Slater‟s brother, LAWRENCE KWASI ADRAH, He attempted to resolve the matter but his efforts were unsuccessful. 5 LAWRENCE KWASI ADRAH, out of compassion then offered to accommodate Doris in his own house at Low-Cost, Anloga. Many years after the deaths of JOHN SLATER ADRDAH and his daughter DORIS ADZOTOR ADRAH, Doris‟ daughter who is the Defendant herein, approached her grandfather‟s siblings for assistance in 2015. The family referred the matter to the Plaintiff in her capacity as head of her father‟s immediate family. Plaintiff obliged the Defendant‟s request, and handed her keys to the disputed house in 2015. Not long after, Defendant‟s four children joined her in the house. Also, her husband paid them visits periodically in the disputed house. Plaintiff told the Honourable Court that the gesture was intended to be a temporary abode for the Defendant. Defendant has therefore over-stayed her welcome and should be ordered out of the premises. Defendant revealed to the Court that earlier in October, 2022, the Plaintiff‟s husband came to inform her that NOEL DELA ADRAH, a junior brother of the Plaintiff, is on retirement and will be coming to stay in the disputed house. In effect, Plaintiff‟s husband urged the Defendant to find a place and pack out of the disputed house as far back as in October, 2022. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF‟S CLAIM WAS SUCCESSFUL? Plaintiff willingly took the Defendant in when she handed the keys to her late father‟s House to her in 2015. Defendant has since lived in the Plaintiff‟s father‟s house for Nine (9) years rent-free. Plaintiff now wants recovery and possession of the disputed House and insisted she wants the Defendant ejected. She listed a number of reasons why the Defendant should be evicted from the premises. They include the following:  That Plaintiff‟s junior brother, NOEL DELA ADRAH, is on retirement and will be coming to stay in the disputed house.  Defendant‟s unruly behaviour which includes keeping wild Dogs in the disputed house without Plaintiff‟s prior permission for purposes of warding the Plaintiff off. 6  Defendant‟s non-payment of Electricity bills, as well as matters surrounding the use of the Toilet facility in the disputed House which pushed a Rent-paying tenant, MR. GERALDO SANTUS (PW2) out of the premises. PW2 told the Court that, he had to resort to defecating outside because the Defendant would leave faecal matter in chamber-pots without disposing of them promptly. She also turned the Toilet into a Public facility and granted unrestrained access to her friends and the general public. In a nutshell, the house was unkempt because of the Defendant and her Children. The Honourable Court found that Defendant was only a Licensee and lived in the house at the pleasure of her benefactors subject to GOOD BEHAVIOUR. She should have therefore exhibited decorum, courteousness, and continued to ATONE TENANCY TO THE PLAINTIFF AND HEAD OF FAMILY. In ACKAH V. PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD. & ORS. [2010] SCGLR 728. the Honourable Court in a unanimous decision, held as follows: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which the claim may fail. 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 succed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury”. Relying on the above authority, the Plaintiff with the help of her Lawyer, and the two witnesses she called, acquitted herself creditably, and managed to prove her case against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities. 7 WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF HAS INTERMEDDLED? The Plaintiff is the current head of the CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH family. Her late father, CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH died intestate in 1972. The disputed House is the self-acquired property of CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH. Plaintiff is the daughter of CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH, and the Defendant is his great- granddaughter. The INTESTATE SUCCESSION ACT, 1985 (P.N.D.C. LAW 111), came into force in 1985. Since CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH died in 1972. The intestate succession Law is not applicable to the instant matter. ARTICLE 11 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION, 1992; provides the following: “(3) For the purposes of this article, "customary law" means the rules of law, which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana”. The Plaintiff‟s personal law is a reference to the system of customary law she is subject to. That rule of customary law is a question of law for the instant court to determine and not for the Defendant to do so. Professor Justice A. K. P. KLUDZE has dealt extensively with the system of inheritance among the EWES, from page “351‟ of his Book, “EWE LAW OF PROPERTY‟. Put together, he stated that; “The Ewes grant the children of a deceased person, an automatic right to succeed to their father’s estate”. SUCCESSION IS PATRILINEAL AND AUTOMATIC. OLLENU J. (as he then was) also decided the following in HERVIE V. TAMAKLOE (1958) 3 W.A.L.R. 342, 344. “The person who is appointed successor to a deceased in the family is, by virtue of his (her) office, the head of the immediate or branch family originating with the particular deceased person, his father or mother”. The late Professor A. K. P. KLUDZE again dealt with the system of head of family among the EWES, in page „101‟ of the same Book, “EWE LAW OF PROPERTY‟. He stated thus; 8 “The head of family has a general responsibility for the conduct and behaviour of members of the family. He must reprimand and discipline all members. So strong was this responsibility that, in the past, the head of family was answerable for the delicts of members of the family. Even today, claims in customary law by customary procedure are laid against individuals through their heads of family”. The Plaintiff is an ANLO. By the rules of custom applicable to Anlos, the Plaintiff being the head of her father‟s immediate family, is the custodian of her late father‟s Estate. She administers all properties, sues and can also be sued in respect of her father‟s estate. Finally, SECTION 54 of the COURTS ACT, 1993 (ACT 459), qualifies the Plaintiff to sue the Defendant in respect of her late father‟s estate in accordance with ANLO LAW AND PRACTICE. Plaintiff has not intermeddled, and cannot be accused of intermeddling by the Defendant. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO HER COUNTER-CLAIM? Defendant did not chart the path of peaceful resolution. She came to Court ready to battle her benefactor. The Defendant filed her Statement of Defence, and counter- claimed for the following reliefs: 1. “A declaration that the disputed house is an estate of Cephas Dekor Adrah (deceased). 2. A declaration that the defendant herein is the great-grandchild of the said Cephas Dekor Adrah. 3. A declaration that by virtue of the fact that the defendant is a great grandchild of Cephas Dekor Adrah she (defendant) is a legal beneficiary to the disputed house and should therefore be treated as such. 4. A declaration that since the disputed house, being an estate of Cephas Dekor Adrah has not been legally administered, the instant action against the defendant by Plaintiff is tantamount to intermeddling which is criminal in nature. 9 5. Any other order or orders as the honourable court may deem fit. 6. Costs.”  For starters, reliefs “1” and “2” of the Defendant‟s Counter-claim taken together, are a given, and have been granted as prayed.  On the contrary, relief „3” of Defendant‟s counter-claim has exposed her a lot. It reveals the mentality with which she entered the disputed house, and also explains the awkward behaviour the Plaintiff complained of about the Defendant. For instance, nothing can explain why the Defendant would unleash WILD DOGS on Plaintiff when Plaintiff visited the disputed house. Defendant‟s late Mother, DORIS ADZOTOR ADRAH, lived in the same house but was thrown out by her father, JOHN SLATER ADRAH. JOHN SLATER ADRAH doubles as the Defendant‟s grandfather and Plaintiff‟s brother. Respectfully, if CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH‟s grandchild was thrown out of his Estate, it meant she was not a “legal beneficiary to the disputed house”. By that same stretch, the Defendant who is a great-grandchild of CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH, cannot afterwards, claim to be any “legal beneficiary to the disputed house”. For the records, CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH had many children and some, like the Plaintiff, are still alive. Those many children also begat their own children who constitute a sizeable number of CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH‟s Grandchildren. Defendant belongs to that group known as GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN. For emphasis, it does not lie in the defendant‟s mouth to talk of any “legal beneficiary to the disputed house”. Especially, when her great-grandfather‟s biological children are still alive, and very strong. This Honourable Court found relief “3” of the Defendant‟s counter-claim outrageous and it is denied accordingly.  Relief “4” of the Defendant‟s Counter-claim is very confrontational to say the least. Intermeddling is defined loosely as “interfering in another’s business”. ORDER 66 RULE 3 OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES,2004 (C.I. 47); defines intermeddling as follows: 10 “Intermeddling with property 3. Where any person, other than the person named as executor in a will or appointed by Court to administer the estate of a deceased person, takes possession of and administers or otherwise deals with the property of a deceased person, the person shall be subject to the same obligations and liabilities as an executor or administrator and shall in addition be guilty of the offence of intermeddling and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units or twice the value of the estate intermeddled with or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both”. The Plaintiff‟s father died in 1972, long before the INTESTATE SUCCESSION LAW, 1985 (P.N.D.C. LAW 111); came into force. Plaintiff is the current head of her father‟s immediate family and from all indications; she has acquitted herself creditably in the performance of that role. Unfortunately for the Defendant, this Honourable Court finds that, the so-called “criminal acts” she accused the Plaintiff of, also included allowing the Defendant access to her late father‟s house. Going by the Defendant‟s assertion therefore, that conduct is “illegal” and cannot be allowed to continue. This Court finds it scandalous that Defendant would seek to jail the Plaintiff after she accommodated Defendant and her family for nine (9) years. It is also not clear to the Court why the Plaintiff agreed to take them in especially when Defendant purports to be a married woman and still bears the title MRS. GLORIA LARYEA SOSU. Further, the Defendant‟s mother‟s history in that same disputed house, and the circumstances leading to her own father driving her out, could have provided a guide and a caution to the Plaintiff. Relief „4‟ of Defendant‟s counter-claim is frivolous and untenable in law. Yet, because it affects the Defendant negatively, it has been granted as prayed.  Reliefs „5‟ and „6‟ of Defendant‟s counter-claim are hereby DENIED. Defendant was given a golden opportunity which she enjoyed with her five (5) children for NINE (9) YEARS RENT-FREE. Defendant‟s disrespectful and confrontational attitudes have just combined to deny her of that beautiful opportunity. 11 EVALUATION OF ALL EVIDENCE: The problem encountered with the instant suit is not necessarily because the Defendant is a descendant in the female line. In fact, that would not have been a problem at all. This is because, the Plaintiff is also female but her children would remain descendants of Cephas Dekor Adrah. The problems the Honourable Court has been invited to determine, are that, the Defendant, a great-grandchild of Cephas Dekor Adrah, was in 2015, pregnant with her 5th Child, and needed a place to lay her head. The Plaintiff, current head of her late father, Cephas Dekor Adrah‟s immediate family, granted the Defendant access to her Plaintiff‟s father house at Kportogbe, Anloga, the subject of the instant suit. After seven (7) years of residing in the house RENT-FREE, Plaintiff proposed to the Defendant in 2022; to find an alternative accommodation because she/the family, have need for the disputed house. The Defendant filed her statement of defence and counter-claim on 17/07/2024; and sought the following in relief “4” of her counter-claim. “A declaration that since the disputed house, being an estate of Cephas Dekor Adrah has not been legally administered, the instant action against the defendant by Plaintiff is tantamount to intermeddling which is criminal in nature”. Defendant under normal circumstances should have thanked the Plaintiff, found alternative accommodation, and left the rooms peacefully, in a tenantable state. That however, was not the case. Contrary to reasonable expectation, Defendant has turned around dramatically to accuse the Plaintiff of being an intermeddler. CONCLUSION: CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH had testamentary capacity in his self-acquired property which is now the disputed house. The Interest/title/ownership he possessed in that property, devolved onto his biological children and immediate family. The Defendant‟s counter-claim did not make much legal sense. The Honourable Court however granted reliefs “1”, “2” and “4” of her counter-claim. 12 By extension, all of Plaintiff‟s acts in respect of her late father‟s house ought to be declared criminal. That definitely includes the Plaintiff admitting the Defendant into her father‟s house. That action according to the Defendant is criminal, and this Honourable Court cannot allow a criminal conduct to persist. The estate of CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH devolved onto his children who held it JOINTLY. By holding it jointly, the last surviving child becomes the absolute owner of their entire CEPHAS DEKOR ADRAH Estate. To change the status quo, this Court recommends that Plaintiff as head of family, champions a crusade to have their late father‟s estate shared to ensure there is order in the family going forward. The Plaintiff acted in her representative capacity as head of family. A head of family position is an institution which clothed the Plaintiff with powers to assist the Defendant. It was therefore a sad spectacle seeing the Defendant question the Plaintiff‟s head of family position Since defendant has risen up against the Plaintiff and questioned her mandate and or warrant, Defendant FORFEITS HER SMALL RIGHT TO STAY IN THE DISPUTED HOUSE; -HOUSE NUMBER: AV 742. GPS: VK-1622-0862, SIDNEY STREET, KPORTOGBE-ANLOGA. ORDERS: 1. PLAINTIFF‟S CLAIM SUCCEEDS IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IS HEREBY GRANTED BUT WITHOUT COSTS. 2. THE DEFENDANT‟S COUNTER-CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS BUT SUCCEEDS IN PART. 3. RELIEFS 1, 2, AND 4 OF DEFENDANT‟S COUNTER-CLAIM HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THEIR WORTH. 13 4. CONSEQUENTLY, PURSUANT TO THE GRANT OF RELIEF “4” OF DEFENDANT‟S COUNTER-CLAIM, SHE FORFEITS ANY RIGHT GRANTED HER BY PLAINTIFF TO STAY IN THE DISPUTED HOUSE; - HOUSE NUMBER: AV 742. GPS: VK-1622-0862, SIDNEY STREET, KPORTOGBE-ANLOGA-. 5. DEFENDANT SHALL GIVE PLAINTIFF VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES FORTHWITH; AND, SHALL SURRENDER ANY ROOM/ROOMS IN HER POSSESSION BACK TO PLAINTIFF IN A TENANTABLE STATE. 6. DEFENDANT SHALL MOVE OUT WITH ANY DOGS AND/OR ANY UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS OF HERS FROM THE DISPUTED HOUSE. 7. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION IS HEREBY DECREED, RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM EVER ASSERTING ANY FORM OF AUTHORITY OVER THE DISPUTED HOUSE. 8. DEFENDANT IS FURTHER RESTRAINED FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PLAINTIFF‟S HEAD OF FAMILY ROLE AND AUTHORITY OVER THE DISPUTED HOUSE. 9. COSTS IS WAIVED ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS. SGD. HW REJOICE ASEYE GADAGOE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 15/11/2024.  Representation: - LAWYER KORBLA SENANU FOR THE PLAINTIFF. - DEFENDANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED. 14