AKOSUA DUFIE VRS.pdf - Judicial Training Institute

that indeed the properties were the self acquired properties of Kwaku
Poku.
In cross examination, the 2 nd Plaintiff was asked if he ever asked his brother
about the title deeds to the properties and his answer was that he never did
because the deceased was his elder brother and he didn’t have to ask him for
the title deeds.
Indeed this flies in the face of reason especially if as he claims he only put the
deceased in charge because he was outside the country at the time. This
assertion by the 2 nd Plaintiff is contrary to logic and his subsequent conduct in
seeking to establish that the properties were family properties. His conduct any
time he came back from the UK was inconsistent with someone who was
financing or had financed the acquisition of the disputed properties.
Indeed in the Defendants statement of case, learned Counsel for the Defendant
strongly argued that both the Trial Judge and the Court of Appeal failed to
consider the inconsistencies in the evidence of the Plaintiffs and their witnesses
and rather tended to give weight to such inconsistencies contrary to the principle
of law laid down in Odametey v Clocuh [1989-90]1 GLR 14 @ 28 S.C.
3. The evidence of PW1 that she divorced the deceased Kwaku Poku
because he did not give her a portion of the farm they cultivated together
is telling and should have been scrutinized by the learned trial judge. If
she knew that it was family property why would she be claiming a part
when she was aware that she was not part of Kwaku Poku’s family and in
her own testimony, this was the reason why she divorced the deceased.
This in my view would rather corroborate Defendants assertion that the
property was not family property but rather the self acquired property of
Kwaku Poku.
4. In addition to this, from the evidence on record, Kwaku Poku was never
called upon to account for the proceeds from the cocoa farms in his
lifetime, neither is there evidence on record to show that he of his own
31