Brown and Another v Abaidoo and Another (A11/17/22) [2025] GHADC 111 (27 August 2025)

Brown and Another v Abaidoo and Another (A11/17/22) [2025] GHADC 111 (27 August 2025)

Plaintiffs have capacity to sue based on expectant interest but failed to prove that the decision to sell the property was made with the consent of all beneficiaries. Defendants are beneficiaries of their late mother's share and cannot be dispossessed without mutual agreement of all beneficiaries. Plaintiffs' evidence was inconsistent and not credible; reliefs sought are denied.

Citation
[2025] GHADC 111
Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Timothy Brown; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Brown; Attorney for Plaintiffs: Vida Agyeiwaa Frimpong Bonney; Defendant: Alice Abaidoo; Defendant: Alfred Abaidoo
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
27 August 2025
Case Number
A11/17/22
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' case dismissed in its entirety; judgment entered against Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Vesting Assent, Tenancy in Common, Family Property, Probate
Source Language
English
Succession Property Law Capacity to Sue Vesting Assent Tenancy in Common Family Property Probate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Timothy Brown

Plaintiff

Elizabeth Brown

Plaintiff

Vida Agyeiwaa Frimpong Bonney

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Alice Abaidoo

Defendant

Alfred Abaidoo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs have capacity to institute the instant case
  2. 2 Whether the subject matter in dispute is a family property
  3. 3 Whether the late Josephlus Freeman Kwamina Brown intended to create a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common in his Will

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs have capacity to sue based on expectant interest but failed to prove that the decision to sell the property was made with the consent of all beneficiaries. Defendants are beneficiaries of their late mother's share and cannot be dispossessed without mutual agreement of all beneficiaries. Plaintiffs' evidence was inconsistent and not credible; reliefs sought are denied.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' case dismissed in its entirety; judgment entered against Plaintiffs.