How Supreme Court saved the Okyere family of Koforidua

James Okyere who is a son of the late Opanyin Kwaku Okyere, gifted the outhouse and the adjoining land to an entire property to his ex-wife, Florence Darko Okyere.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court has upheld a judgment of the Court of Appeal that nullified the purported gifting of property belonging to the Okyere family of Koforidua to an ex-wife by a sibling.

James Okyere who is a son of the late Opanyin Kwaku Okyere, gifted the outhouse and the adjoining land to an entire property to his ex-wife, Florence Darko Okyere despite a customary declaration by the deceased father of the same property to all his children and second wife.

It was the case of Mr. James Okyere that even though his father gifted the entire landed property to him and his siblings, the outhouse specifically and the adjoining land were given to him in a subsequent declaration by his father.

In the judgment by Prof Mensa Bonsu JSC, however, the 1st defendant could not establish the veracity of that declaration nor support the same with any evidence.

“The 1st defendant sought to elbow out his siblings from a gift made to all of them and their mother. At the time of the registration of the documents in 1986, the father had already divested himself of the property and did not have the power to make another gift of it to anyone else. “

It was further found that James Okyere’s wife had moved a step further to develop the said land by building stores on it for rent.

As such the five-member panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo held that the wife ought to have known the nature of her husband’s root of title to the said property.

Further, in upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, their Lordships noted that Florence ought to forfeit her investment on the land for denying the title of her licensors, the Okyeres.

The court thus concluded that James Okyere and his wife “had cause to pause when they agreed on the terms of settlement for their divorce, in respect of property that had co-beneficiaries, but they chose to close their eyes to the evidence. “