Nil Okine Amarfio & Anor V. Emma Ayorkor (1954)

EMMA AYORKOR, substituted for J. J. Ocquaye, Head of Mensah Akornor/William Akotey family, Adaku Mensah family of Accra for himself and ON BEHALF OF THE SAID FAMILY

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West Africa Court of Appeal

Native Law and Custom—Ga customary law—Family in female line—Selfacquired property—ZtevoZution—Child by six-cloth marriage —Extent ofinterest in father’s property.

Facts

“There is in this connection a saying that no woman stands alone, for behind her stands a united family bound by the tie of blood”: from the judgment infra.

In his lifetime A. acquired a house. A. married by a Ga six-cloth marriage and left children at his death, one being the first appellant. The first appellant claimed for A. ’s children that he was entitled to the rents of the house and warned tenants not to pay the respondent; he also demolished a structure put up by someone related to A. on the maternal side with the permission of the original respondent.

The original respondent as plaintiff sued the first appellant on the ground that he, the plaintiff, was the head of the A.-M. family to which A. belonged in Ga customary law, that is on the mother’s side, and the Judge held that A’.s house became part of the A.-M. family’s property, and that the first appellant’s right was solely to reside in the house. (During the case the first appellant as defendant appointed someone as head of A. ’s family to look after their rights; that someone was joined as co-defendant; hence the second appellant by substitution for that someone who died.)

The defendants appealed arguing in substance that the wider A.-M. family had no interest in A.’s house until A.’s immediate family was exhausted. (But at the trial the first defendant admitted that children were not part of their father’s family.)

Held

(1) A. during his lifetime belonged to his mother’s family, namely the A.-M. family, and upon A.’s death his self-acquired property fell to this family united by the tie of blood traceable through A.-M.’s female descendants, and the head of the A.-M. family was entitled to control that property and to sue the defendants to ward off their claims.

(2) Children of a Ga six-cloth marriage have a right of support out of their father’s self-acquired property, but what it shall be depends on the decision of the family.

(3) The family’s interest in the property is indivisible and a part of it cannot be severed except by consent.

Appeal dismissed.