[1961]DLHC5515 • November 27, 1961 • High Court
KWAKYE vs. TUBA AND OTHERS
The plaintiff sued in his capacity as the customary successor of one Kwasi Kumah of Asokore, New Juabeng, seeking a declaration of title to land and a farm at Bukruwa in Kwahu, an injunction, and an account of proceeds. He alleged that after his appointment as successor, he allowed the defendants, who were children of Kwasi Panin (the deceased’s elder brother), to manage the farm on terms that they would receive one-third of the annual proceeds. According to him, the defendants complied for two years but in the 1960/61 cocoa season repudiated the arrangement, denied his title, drove away his caretaker, and took possession. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was the valid successor and contended that because Kwasi Kumah was a Muslim and died without issue, succession should devolve under Muslim law upon them as children of his brother. Portion of judgment: “The plaintiff instituted this action in his capacity as successor according to customary law of one Kwasi Kuma of Asokore, New Juabeng, and claimed 1 declaration of title... 2 injunction, and 3 account... The defence is that the plaintiff is not successor... and further that by Muslim law... the defendants, children of his brother, succeeded to his estate.”
read moreThe plaintiff instituted this action in his capacity as successor according to customary law of one Kwasi Kuma of Asokore, New Juabeng, and claimed (1) declaration of title to a piece of land with farm thereon situate at Bukruwa in Kwahu, (2) injunction, and (3) account of the proceeds of the said farm. The defendants are children of one Kwasi Panin, deceased, who was elder brother to the said Kwasi Kumah. Both the said Kwasi Panin and the said Kwasi Kumah were Muslims. The plaintiff pleaded that after he had entered upon his office as successor aforesaid, he voluntarily entered into agreement with the defendants whereby he placed them in charge of the farm, and was to give them annually, one-third of the proceeds of the said farm, further, that the defendants adhered to the terms of the said agreement for two years, but repudiated the same at the beginning of the third year, i.e. the beginning of 1960-61 cocoa season, denied his title to the said farm, drove away his, the plaintiff...