Late Bantamahene’s Mbrom property belongs to maternal family, not wife and children – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a house belonging to the late Bantamahene, Baffour Owusu Amankwatia IV, located at Mbrom in Kumasi, forms part of his estate and must pass to his maternal family in accordance with his will, rather than to his wife and children.

The apex court held that the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) government's confiscation of the property in 1979 did not permanently extinguish the deceased chief's ownership interest. Consequently, its subsequent release by the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) government in 1992 restored the property to his estate, making it subject to the provisions of his will.

In a judgment delivered on July 29, 2026, the five-member panel of the Supreme Court allowed an appeal brought by Albert Owusu Baah, representing the maternal family, against Mrs. Agnes Owusu Asare, Alex Owusu Asare and two others.

The Court consequently set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated May 9, 2024, and restored the decision and orders of the High Court delivered on January 12, 2023, in favour of the deceased's maternal family.

The panel was presided over by Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, with Justice Ackaah-Boafo delivering the opinion of the Court. The other members were Justices Asiedu, Gaewu and Amaleboba.

Background of the dispute

The dispute centred on House No. 63, Mbrom, Kumasi, a property personally acquired by the late Baffour Owusu Amankwatia IV, also known as Anthony Asare Owusu or A.A. Owusu.

In 1978, the late chief executed a will in which he devised the property to his family. However, the AFRC government confiscated the house in 1979, before his death in 1985.

Probate of his will was granted in 1991, while the property was still under State confiscation.

In April 1992, the PNDC government released the house, giving rise to competing claims between the deceased's maternal family and his wife and children.

The maternal family maintained that the property had been devised to them under the deceased's will and that its release by the government did not alter their entitlement.

The wife and children, however, claimed ownership following the release and subsequently obtained letters of administration and registered title to the property in their names.

This prompted the maternal family, represented by Albert Owusu Baah, to institute an action at the High Court in Kumasi in August 2006, seeking declarations of ownership and consequential reliefs.

The High Court ruled in favour of the maternal family on January 12, 2023, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal on May 9, 2024.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the maternal family appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court faults Court of Appeal's interpretation of confiscation

In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the confiscation of the property had completely extinguished the deceased's ownership interest.

The Court of Appeal had reasoned that since the property remained under State confiscation when probate was granted in 1991, it could not have formed part of the deceased's estate.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the confiscation did not permanently destroy the deceased's underlying proprietary interest.

Justice Ackaah-Boafo, in the opinion of the Court, described the Court of Appeal's reasoning as a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable law.

The Supreme Court explained that although the property had been confiscated by the State, the subsequent release restored it to the estate of its original owner.

Accordingly, the government could not, merely by releasing the property, be taken to have made a fresh gift to the deceased's wife and children contrary to the provisions of his will.

The Court further held that the Court of Appeal had erred in relying on the government's release documents, particularly Exhibit 1, to determine who was entitled to the property.

According to the apex court, once it was established that the deceased's proprietary interest had not been permanently extinguished, the question of inheritance had to be resolved by reference to his will.

Who did the deceased mean by 'my family'?

Another central issue before the Supreme Court concerned the meaning of the expression "my family" in the deceased Bantamahene's will.

While the wife and children claimed entitlement to the property, the maternal family maintained that the expression referred to the deceased's family under native law and custom.

The Supreme Court held that a will must be interpreted as a whole, with the primary objective of giving effect to the intentions of the testator as expressed in the document.

Applying that principle, the Court concluded that the late Bantamahene intended House No. 63, Mbrom, Kumasi, to pass to his maternal family, rather than to his wife and children.

The Court therefore affirmed that the property should devolve in accordance with that testamentary intention.

High Court decision restored

The Supreme Court also considered issues concerning limitation, laches and acquiescence, which had arisen during proceedings before the lower courts.

It declined to determine those matters because they did not form part of the live grounds of appeal before it.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's judgment and restored the judgment and orders of the High Court.

Read full judgment on Dennislaw.