Magnusen Vrs Appiah (a.K.A Ayitey Sampah and 4otherss [2022] GHAHC 3 (7 November 2022)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE LAND DIVISION HELD IN ACCRA ON MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (J) MRS. PHILOMENA COMFORT MAGNUSEN - PLAINTIFF SUIT NO.: FAL/872/2014 VRS 1. NII APPIAH(a.k.a AYITEY SAMPAH) - DEFENDANTS 2. MR. ANAMOAH 3. OKULEY 4. NANA 5. NII OKINE ARYEE LARTEY PARTIES: PLAINTIFF PRESENT 1ST DEFENDANT PRESENT AND REPRESENTS 2ND, 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH DEFENDANTS ============================================================== J U D G M E N T 1.0 The Plaintiff by his amended writ of summons filed on the 5th day of June 2015 sought for the following reliefs: Page 1 of 25 a) An order perpetually restraining the 1st Defendant from dealing with, entering or renting the property known as H/No. 65, Korle Gonno, Accra b) An order ejecting the 2nd to 4th Defendants from the above forthright. c) An order for recovery of all rents collected by 1st Defendant from the above property. d) Cost. 2.0 The 1st to 4th Defendants also filed an amended defence to Plaintiff’s amended writ of summons dated 20th day of October 2014 and counterclaim for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the Plaintiff herein fraudulently obtained the Letters of Administration in reference to the Estate of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey (deceased). 2. An order revoking (annulling/cancelling) the Letters of Administration granted to the Plaintiff to administer the Estate of the deceased in accordance with law. 3. An order directing the State Housing Company to reverse the vesting of House No. 65, North West Korle Gonno (Link Road Mamprobi) A 634/3 Edwardo Mohdlana road, Mamprobi, Accra which being the bona fide property of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey. Page 2 of 25 4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, her servants, agents, assigns, heirs and all deriving authority from her from dealing with the property in issue. 5. A declaration that the Plaintiff has no capacity to deal with House No. 65, North West Korle-Gonno (Link Road Mamprobi) A634/3, Edwardo Mohdlana Road, Mamprobi, Accra. 6. 7. 8. 9. A declaration that the Plaintiff is liable and guilty of intermeddling. Substantial damages. Cost including Attorney’s fees. Any further or other relief(s) found due by the honourable court. 3.0 Nii Okai Aryee Lartey was subsequently joined to the suit as the 5th Defendant. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE 4.0 The Plaintiff, Philomena Comfort Magnusen’s case is that she was the Lawful Administratrix of the Estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and also the sole beneficiary of the property in dispute, House No. 65 Link Road, Mamprobi Accra formerly known as H/No. 65 North West Korle Gonno Estate, Accra. 5.0 The Plaintiff avers that after consensus and a family meeting of all family members she was authorized and appointed as the Sole Page 3 of 25 Administratrix of the Estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey. The Letters of Administration certificate was attached as Exhibit “A”. 6.0 It is the case of the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant is a great grandchild of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and unemployed whiles the 2nd to 4th Defendants were occupants in the property in dispute illegally put into possession by the 1st Defendant. 7.0 The Plaintiff contends that he does not know the 5th Defendant and it is also not true that he is the head of the Lartey family as he claims. 8.0 The Plaintiff stated that she was appointed as the sole administrator of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey by the High Court on 21st June 2012 and attached the death certificate of the said Emmanuel Aryee Lartey as Exhibit “B” 9.0 The Plaintiff contends that the property in issue belonged to Tawiah Ferguson who was the one allocated the building by the Stated Housing Corporation on 18th November 1939 but the property had been vested in her as the sole surviving beneficiary since the Tawiah Ferguson was her uncle. 10.0 That her mother Mercy Ago Mills inherited Tawiah Ferguson as the only surviving sister upon Tawiah Ferguson’s death in 1947. 11.0 It is Plaintiff’s case that the Government of Ghana wrote to all the occupants in the houses indicating an option to occupants who wanted to carry out extensions to apply but the said Emmanuel Aryee Lartey who had become a licensee in the property upon the permission of Tawiah, thus after some family members had pleaded Page 4 of 25 with her to allow the Emmanuel Aryee Lartey to live in the house because he has nowhere to live. 12.0 She told the court that on the false pretense the said Late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey went to change the ownership over the property at the State Housing Company into his name, this was illegally done by him without consulting any family member or the Plaintiff and her mother. The document the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey used in effecting the said illegal change of ownership was attached by Plaintiff to her witness statement as Exhibit “E”. 13.0 It is Plaintiff’s case that she is the surviving daughter and child of the said Mrs. Mercy Ago Mills and by operation of customary law the sole beneficiary to the said Estate of Tawiah Ferguson and heir to the property in dispute. 14.0 The Plaintiff said that at one time her brother took a daughter of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey to court and obtained an order to stop the said daughter Amatsoo from collecting rents from tenants in that property. She said her brother then managed the property until his death. 15.0 The Plaintiff said after the death of his brother Mr. Edmund Bortey Odoom, she started managing the property and ejected all the tenants from the house in her capacity as the sole surviving beneficiary to the property. 16.0 The Plaintiff said she then went to the State Housing Company and showed the documents whereupon she was told that the late Page 5 of 25 Emmanuel Ayi Lartey had illegally changed the ownership over the property from that of Tawiah Ferguson into his name and that to reverse that act the Plaintiff needed to go and obtain Letters of Administration in respect of Estate of Late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey before State Housing Company can effect and reverse the change. She did that specifically to be able to effect the change into her name, these were evidenced by Exhibit F Series she attached to her witness statement. 17.0 The Plaintiff said the 1st Defendant without any interest and claim to the property has rented the rooms in the house to 2nd and 4th Defendants without her authority and consent and has collected rents from them. 18.0 She said when she got to know of this she challenged him and reported him to the police but he has failed to make himself available to the police. That instead of responding to the police invitation rather 1st Defendant filed a defective caveat after the grant of the Letters of Administration to her claim to the house which was objected to and the 1st Defendant never pursued the process again. The Plaintiff attached the caveat and objection as Exhibit G. 19.0 The Plaintiff stated that the 1st Defendant’s act of placing tenants in the property which does not belong to him is a clear attempt to deprive her of her interest as the sole beneficiary of the above property and so 1st Defendant should be perpetually restrained by the court from renting it out or in any way dealing with the property in dispute. The Plaintiff said she caused her lawyer to write the 1st Page 6 of 25 Defendant the warning letter which she attached as Exhibit M. This letter was also addressed to the tenants, 2nd to 4th Defendants. 20.0 The Plaintiff stated that she also wanted the 2nd to 4th Defendants to be ejected forthwith from the premises occupied by them in the property in dispute. 21.0 The Plaintiff said the 5th Defendant is not known to her and not her family head, as wrongly claimed by him and the property in issue is from her maternal family and not the paternal family so the 5th Defendant has no locus. The Plaintiff requested the court to grant her the reliefs endorsed on her writ. THE 1ST TO 4TH DEFENDANTS CASE 22.0 The 1st to 4th Defendants relied on the Witness statement filed by the 1st Defendant who testified on his behalf and on behalf of the 2nd to 4th Defendants. 23.0 The 1st Defendant said he was the stool father of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Area of James Town, Accra and was related to the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey both maternally and paternally, the maternal side known as Amanfa and Naa We of James Town. He said he knew the 5th Defendant as the Head of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey, and that the 2nd to 4th Defendants are licensees of the 5th Defendant and are occupying the premises free to prevent the Page 7 of 25 Plaintiff from selling to unsuspecting buyers. He stated that the property in issue was given to the late Tawiah Ferguson in 1939 by State Housing Company but it was only to occupy for one (1) year. He attached Exhibit 1 as evidence of that and that after the one year the license granted her terminated. That 10 years after the termination of the said permit the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey applied to the Rehousing Authority, an agency of the government to purchase the disputed property, he attached Exhibit 2, he said the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey paid the total purchase consideration covering the house in installments to the Rehousing Authority and to its successor State House Company Ltd. for conversion of the four room apartment. He said the SHC wrote to the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey as per Exhibit 3 for the purchase. 24.0 H said the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey was in actual occupation and possession of the property until his demise. He said the Plaintiff was fully aware that the subject matter belonged to the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey yet applied for Letters of Administration in respect of his estate but did not include the disputed property. He said the Late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey was survived by children who he listed and attached Exhibit 5 series, obituaries of the persons and the two children namely Madam Emelia Amatsoo Lartey and Gifty Ameley Lartey. He said they were alive when the Plaintiff applied for Letters of Administration and attached Exhibit 5C. He said the Plaintiff concealed this fact from the court when she applied for the Letters of Administration. He said the Head of family at the time Plaintiff Page 8 of 25 applied for the Letters of Administration was William Francisco Ribeiro (a.k.a Nii Shipi) and not Felix Aryee of Modor and he died on 4th July 2013. He said it was factually wrong that Plaintiff is the surviving niece and sole beneficiary of the Estate of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and the only surviving nieces are Sarah Addoley Ankrah and Gloria Adorkor Ankrah, he said the Plaintiff did not give the public notice and the family of her application as required by law. He said he did not file any caveat and it may have been filed by the paternal head of late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey family he said Plaintiff should not be granted her reliefs and is not entitled to the reliefs. THE 5TH DEFENDANT’S CASE 25.0 The 5th Defendant testified per his witness statement filed on 4th July 2016. He said he was the head of the Lartey family of Mamprobi, Accra and the Plaintiff is unknown to his family he said the property in dispute was owned by Emmanuel Aryee Lartey (Deceased) and it was granted to him by State Housing Company Ltd. He attached Exhibit LL to prove this. 26.0 He said that to his knowledge the Plaintiff applied for the Letters of Administration on a fraudulent misrepresentation and falsehood, he said the Plaintiff had never been head of family of the Lartey family and she is not the niece of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey (deceased). He said the Plaintiff has no capacity to bring the action against the Defendant and has wrongly vested the property in herself as per his Page 9 of 25 Exhibit LL. He said that Plaintiff does not inherit the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey who has direct children and grandchild to inherit him. He said the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey paid for the house in dispute by himself fully and at times sent one Samuel Adotey Ankrah and John Saka Ankrah to pay for the house. 27.0 The 5th Defendant did not call a witness. This ended the case and the parties were ordered to file their addresses by the honourable court. 28.0 After the close of pleadings the following issues were set down for the Court’s determination 29.0 ISSUES 1. Whether or not the Plaintiff is the Head of family of Amanfa family. 2. Whether or not the Plaintiff was the authorized person to apply for Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of the late Edward Bortey? 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff is the surviving daughter of the late Mrs. Mercy Ago Mills the sole beneficiary of the Estate of the late Auntie Tawiah which includes H/No. 65, Korle Gonno, Accra. 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff committed fraud in the application for Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey. 5. Whether or not the 1st Defendant was installed Head of Family of the Naa We and Amanfa family? Page 10 of 25 6. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her relief. 7. Whether or not the Defendants are entitled to their counterclaim. 8. Any other issue or issues that may arise from the pleadings. The Defendants on the 4th day of March 2015 also filed the following additional issues for the court’s consideration. a) Whether or not the Plaintiff has capacity in instituting the present action. b) Whether or not House No. 65 North West, Korle-Gonno, The subject matter of the suit was declared by the Plaintiff. c) Whether or not at the time the Plaintiff applied for the Letters of Administration the said Felix Aryee of H/No. D43/1 Mudor-Accra was the Lawful Head of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey’s family. d) Whether or not the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey died survived by children. e) Any other issues that the honourable court may deem necessary for the conduct of this case. 30.0 Before this court will proceed to resolve the issues raised by the parties after the close of pleadings, I deem it proper to touch on briefly the onus placed on the parties and what the law require from them in proof of their respective cases. THE APPLICABLE LAW/BURDEN OF PROOF Page 11 of 25 31.0 The principle relating to the burden of producing evidence was applied in the decided case of FAIBI VRS STATE HOTELS CORPORATION (1968) GLR 471. The Court held that: “Onus in law lay upon the party who would lose if no evidence was led in the case and where prime evidence had been led it lay on a party who would lose if no further evidence was led. In the instant case since the Plaintiff’s contention was that his dismissal was wrongful whilst that of the Defendant was that the dismissal was not wrongful, the party who would lose if no further evidence was led would be the Plaintiff. The onus was therefore on the Plaintiff to prove that he was wrongfully dismissed. The Plaintiff must prove that he did not contravene the orders of his employers, or if he did, that orders were unlawful and unreasonable and on the evidence he failed to do so” 32.0 In ACKAH VS PERGAH TRANSPORT & OTHERS (2010) SCGLR 728 AT 738 Sophia Adinyira JSC delivered herself as follows: “It is the basic principle of law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of fact in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail… 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 that its non-existence.” 33.0 By Section 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) it states the grounds as to who bears the burden of proof at any given time in any dispute it states: Page 12 of 25 “Except as otherwise provided by law, 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”. 34.0 In the decided case of ZABRAMA V SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR at Pg. 246 it was held as follows: “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. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of that burden” 35.0 This statutory provision has also been re-inforced and approved in a lot of judicial decision prominent among them worth mentioning is the Supreme Court case of MEMUNA MOUDY AND ORS VS ANTWI (2003-2004) 2 SCGLR at 974-975 where Georgina Wood JSC (as she then was) delivered herself thus: “A cardinal principle of law on proof as enunciated in the age old case of Majolagbe v Larbi (1959) GLR 190 and reiterated in a number of cases including ZABRAMA V SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR at 246 is that a person who makes an averment or assertion which is denied by his opponent, has the burden to establish that his averment is true. And he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the facts he asserts can be properly inferred…” Page 13 of 25 36.0 I need not belabor this known cardinal principle of law on the burden of proof but it is refreshing to state unequivocally that gleaning from Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the fact in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. 37.0 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 probable than its non-existence. See cases of: A) ACKAH V PERGA TRANSPORT (SUPRA) B) YORKWA V DUAH (1992-1993) GBR 276 C) GIHOC VS JEAN HANNA ASSI (2005-2006) SCGLR 198 D) TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V SAMIRA FARIS (2005-2006) SCGLR 882 38.0 The Plaintiff in her application for directions filed as well as the additional issues filed by the 1st to 4th Defendants set out plethora of issues for the courts consideration. 39.0 I must state that this court in considering the array of issues set out will concentrate on those which are germane and which resolution will assist the court in determining the matter placed before it. Page 14 of 25 40.0 It is held in the case of DOMFE VRS ADU (1968) 1 GLR 653 CA per Abban JA (as he then was) when he observed that although several issues were set down in the summons for direction for trial, most of them could hardly be described as relevant. 41.0 To his mind issues that were relevant were those that could dispose of the case on way or the other. 42.0 Since the Defendants after filing a defence to Plaintiff’s action also counterclaim asking for the reliefs set out in same. This boils down to the fact that they equally carry the same burden of persuasion to lead cogent and reliable evidence to prove their counterclaim. 43.0 The Plaintiff in her amended statement of claim stated therein as follows: “That the Plaintiff denies paragraphs 6 & 7 of the defence and states that the late Edward Bortey Odoom who was then Head of family before William Francisco Ribeiro (deceased) was her brother and Plaintiff would have been made the Head of family then, had she been male. The Plaintiff was however made the female Head of Family of the Amanfa family in June 2008, in the presence of the 1st Defendant who with another held the Plaintiff to sit on a chair three times to signify her headship.” 44.0 This court however gleaning from the evidence in chief of the Plaintiff as contained in the witness statement filed by her dated 7th day of July 2016 did not lead any evidence to prove that she in fact was made the female Head of family of the Amanfa family in June Page 15 of 25 2008 in the presence of the 1st Defendant who with another held her hand to sit on a chair three times to signify her headship. 45.0 All what she said in paragraph 26 of her witness statement was that “the 1st Defendant has no interest, right or claim to the property in issue and the 5th Defendant is not known to me and not our family head as claimed by him” 46.0 The question this court need to ask is, is there any evidence on record that she was made the female Head of Amanfa and Naa We families? 47.0 All what the Plaintiff alluded to is that she is the lawful Administratrix of the Estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and also the sole beneficiary to the property known as H/No. 65, Link Road Mamprobi Accra, formerly H/No. 65 North Korle Gonno Estate and brings this action in that capacity. 48.0 In her witness statement she stated emphatically in paragraph 3 that “By the operation of law and after due consensus by all family members I applied to the court and was appointed the Sole Administratrix for the estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey.” Attached hereto is the said certificate for the Letters of Administration as Exhibit A. 49.0 My understanding of the words “by operation of law and after due consensus by all family members” does not simply make her the female Head of Amanfa and Naa We family. 50.0 The Plaintiff’s assertion in her testimony was also challenged by both the 1st Defendant and the 5th Defendant who was later joined to the suit. Page 16 of 25 51.0 The 5th Defendant testified that he is the Head of the Lartey family of Mamprobi-Accra and that the Plaintiff is unknown to the family. 52.0 The 1st Defendant also in his witness statement as his evidence-in- chief testified to corroborate 5th Defendant’s testimony that he knows the 5th Defendant to be the paternal head of family, to which the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey of blessed memory belonged. 53.0 These pieces of evidence in my humble view put the matter to rest and resolve the issue beyond doubt that the Plaintiff clothed herself with that capacity to enable her go to court to obtain Letters of Administration to solely administer the Estate of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and not that she was made a female Head of family of the Amanfa family in June 2008. Simply because the 1st Defendant whom she alleges and one another who held her to sit on a chair three times to signify her headship did not say so. 54.0 I proceed to the second issue raised, whether or not the Plaintiff was the authorized person to apply for Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of the late Edward Bortey Odoom. 55.0 This court will not spend precious time on this issue because gleaning from the pleadings as well as the evidence led by both parties and witnesses called and exhibits tendered in proof of their respective cases none of them led evidence to establish that the property in contention that is H/No. 65 Korle-Gonno, Accra formed part of the Estate of the late Edward Bortey Odoom. Page 17 of 25 56.0 Both parties in leading evidence to establish their respective claims and counterclaim unreservedly admitted that Edward Bortey Odoom rather is a senior brother to the Plaintiff and was once upon a time when he was alive Head of Amanfa and Naa We families who was later succeeded by the late Miguel William Francisco Ribeiro (a.k.a Nii Shiki) 57.0 The Plaintiff testified when she was being cross examined by counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants that the late Edward Bortey Odoom was his biological brother from the same mother but from different father. 58.0 And that whilst her brother was the Head of the Amanfa and Naa We families he challenged the ownership of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey (deceased) to the disputed property, that is H/No. 65, Korle-Gonno Accra and once sent the daughter of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey called Amatsoo Lartey to court and had judgment. 59.0 I am yet to see this judgment. 60.0 There is no evidence on record that the disputed property personally belongs to the Plaintiff’s late brother Mr. Odoom who died intestate for same to become part of his Estate for the Plaintiff to be authorized to apply for Letters of Administration in respect of the disputed property. 61.0 This therefore is no issue which the court should spend precious time on in resolving same. Page 18 of 25 62.0 This then brings me to a very crucial issue whether or not the Plaintiff is the surviving daughter of the late Mrs. Ago Mills, the sole beneficiary of the Estate of Auntie Tawiah which includes H/No. 65, Korle-Gonno Accra. 63.0 There is no doubt at all that the Plaintiff is not the daughter of Mrs. Ago Mills a.k.a Mrs. Mercy Ago Mills. 64.0 As ostensibly captured, Exhibit “10” being the funeral and burial brochure of the late Edward Bortey Odom whom the Plaintiff has admitted in her pleadings and witness statement filed that the late Odoom is her uterine brother from the same mother but different fathers. 65.0 It is stated “Kwamla as I called him was born on the 22nd day of March 1923 to Mr. B. A. Odoom and Madam Anna Akweley Ferguson both deceased”. 66.0 Thus without mincing words the Plaintiff herself admitted that Madam Anna Akweley Ferguson is the mother of her deceased brother and by necessary implication, Madam Anna Akweley Ferguson is her mother and not Mrs. Ago Mills. 67.0 By Defendants Exhibit “1” which is the same as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C” dated 16th day of November 1939, the late Tawiah Ferguson was given a Temporary Occupation Permit. The late Tawiah Ferguson was authorized to enter into temporary occupation of plot No. 65 which is the property in dispute for a period of one (1) year subject Page 19 of 25 to the conditions of permit specified there under. Among the conditions are: 3. “Not to construct any new buildings or structures upon the said plot or to add to or alter the building constructed by the Government thereon without the previous consent in writing of the Government” 4. “To yield up possession of the said plot and building of the expiry of the said period of one(1) year or at any time thereafter in accordance with a notice by the Government as above provided” 5. “This Permit is issued on the express understanding that in the event of failure on my part to observe or comply with the foregoing conditions the Government shall be entitled forthwith to cancel the permit.” 68.0 Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants submitted in his written address filed in the court that after the expiration of the permit, the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey then applied to the Government in his own right and was thus allocated the disputed property. The fact that Emmanuel Aryee Lartey applied is seen on 1st – 4th Defendants exhibit “2” tendered in evidence. 69.0 In a sworn to affidavit attached to a declaration by Emmanuel Aryee Lartey (deceased) paragraph 4 he stated: 4) “That pursuant to the Department of Social Welfare and Housing Communication, I am willing to pay the purchase price of four Hundred and Sixty-Six Pounds (£466) for the conversion of the four-roomed house Page 20 of 25 on instalment bases of Two pounds Nine (9) Shillings (£2.9s) per month in order to become the bonafide owner of the house in question.” 70.0 That surprisingly, the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey died before the full purchase consideration of the disputed property was completely paid for to the State Housing Corporation in the year 1980. 71.0 The Plaintiff in her testimony said Emmanuel Aryee Lartey died on the 18th day of June 1960 but in the affidavit sworn to in support of the application for Letters of Administration stated that the same person died on the 18th June 1966 at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital. 72.0 That irrespective of the two conflicting dates of death of Mr. Emmanuel Aryee Lartey given it was in 1980 that the State Housing Corporation wrote to Mr. E. A Lartey that the purchase price of the disputed property has been completely paid. 73.0 Counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants submitted that family members (living souls) who at all material times are aware of the fact that the property belonged to the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and not Madam Tawiah Ferguson who actively and positively completed the payment of the purchase price of the disputed property which stood in the name of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey. 74.0 The question this court need to ask is what was the reason or basis on which the Plaintiff went to the High Court as the sole applicant to administer the estate of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey and claim to be the sole beneficiary of the estate and succeeded in vesting the disputed property in her name. Page 21 of 25 75.0 It is the contention of the Plaintiff that Mrs. Ago Mills is the sole beneficiary of the Estate of Auntie Tawiah which includes the disputed property i.e H/No. 65 Korle- Gonno Accra. 76.0 This court however holds a contrary view as there is no credible evidence on record to support that claim. 77.0 On the fourth issue raised; whether or not the Plaintiff committed fraud in the application for the Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey? 78.0 It is trite learning that where a person died intestate on or after 14th June 1985, the person who have beneficial interest in the Estate of the deceased shall be entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration in the following order of priority a) Any surviving spouse b) Any children c) Any surviving parent d) The customary successor of the deceased. 79.0 The affidavit attached to the application for Letters of Administration by the Applicant as the Sole Administratrix to administer the Estate of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey dated 20th June 2012 was sworn to an oath and was expected that she will speak the truth and make full disclosures. 80.0 She deposed to in paragraph (3) of the said affidavit that “I am the only surviving niece of the above named deceased and I am customarily appointed to succeed him” Page 22 of 25 81.0 She never disclosed to the court that Emmanuel Aryee Lartey was survived by two (2) children namely Emelia Amatsoo Lartey and Gifty Amerley Lartey. She put the name of a different person as the Head of Emmanuel Aryee Lartey’s family and on the declaration made only stated money at bank (GH¢3,000.00) and personal belongings valued at (GH¢2,000.00) as the only things Emmanuel Aryee Lartey died possess of without including the property House No. 65, Korle Gonno-Accra. 82.0 And on the strength of this same Letters of Administration succeeded in vesting the property in herself as the sole beneficiary. 83.0 If this conduct of the Plaintiff cannot be described as fraudulent then what else tag can be placed or hang on it. 84.0 In the case of Akim Akroso Stool & Ors v. Akim Manso Stool & Ors. “Fraud was alleged and proved against a judgment that judgment could not stand” 85.0 It has also been held in the case of MASS PROJECT LTD. (NO 2) VRS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & YOO MART LTD. (NO 2) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 309 that “fraud vitiates every conduct, an allegation of fraud if proven and sustained will wipe and sweep away everything in its trail as if the thing had never existed” 86.0 I will proceed and rule that whatever journey the Plaintiff embarks on clothing herself with capacity under the guise of being the female head of the Amanfa family and succeeded in obtaining Letters of Administration to administer the Estate of the Late Emmanuel Aryee Page 23 of 25 Lartey by vesting the disputed property H/No. 65 Korle- Gonno, Accra in her name as the sole beneficiary was fraudulent and same is frown upon and would not be recognized by this court. The reliefs sought for by the Plaintiff is dismissed in its entirety. 87.0 ORDERS 1. This court proceeds to make an order revoking/cancelling the letters of administration granted to the Plaintiff to administer the Estate of the deceased Emmanuel Aryee Lartey as same is tainted with fraud. 2. The Court further direct the State Housing Company to reverse the vesting of H/No. 65 North West, Korle-Gonno (Link Road Mamprobi) A 634/3 Edwardo Mohdlana Road Mamprobi, Accra being the bonafide property of the late Emmanuel Aryee Lartey. 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, her servants, agents, assigns, heirs and all deriving authority from her from dealing with the property in issue. 4. The Court further declares that the Plaintiff has no capacity to deal with the house No. 65 North West Korle-Gonno (Link Road Mamprobi) A634/3 Edwardo Mohdlana Road Mamprobi, Accra. 5. The Court further declares that the Plaintiff was intermeddling with the said property under a false delusion that she has the authority to do so. Page 24 of 25 88.0 The Defendants as part of the reliefs sought for are asking for substantial damages against the Plaintiff and cost including the Attorney’s fees. 89.0 I must place on record that, I did not try this case from its inception, it passed through some judges with the last one recusing himself before it was assigned to me when the case was almost concluded. 90.0 I saw the Plaintiff a nonagenarian confined in a wheel chair always in court. She was acting under the false impression that she had procured Letters of Administration from a Law Court and a vesting assent. 91.0 The Court is in existence to do justice but not to compound the woes of litigants. It is on this reason that damages for intermeddling with the disputed property, I will write off and award cost of GH¢10,000.00 in favour of the Defendants against the Plaintiff. (SGD) ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (J) COUNSEL: ANDREW TETTEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT G. N. K PHIXON OWOO FOR THE 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS ABSENT ADELAIDE GEORGINA ADJOVU FOR STANLEY BOYE QUAYE FOR THE 5TH DEFENDANT ABSENT Page 25 of 25