
US-based nurse battles mother, sister over disputed Kumasi house; Court awards 70-30 split
By DL News
Published
2 min read
Felicia claimed that despite contributing a substantial sum—USD $211,000—towards the construction of the house, her mother and sister had denied her access to the property.
What might have been presumed to be a harmonious family arrangement, rooted in blood ties, turned sour when a US-based nurse, Felicia Osei Bonsu, filed a writ against her mother, Ataa Akosua, and her younger sister, Georgina Osei, seeking full ownership of a property located at Plot No. 13, Block ‘C’, Duasi-Kumasi.
Felicia claimed that despite contributing a substantial sum—USD $211,000—towards the construction of the house, her mother and sister had denied her access to the property.
Facts of the Case
According to court documents, Felicia had not lived with her mother for several years. However, she later purchased a plane ticket to bring her mother to the United States, enrolled her in the social security system, and ensured she received payments while in the country.
Subsequently, her mother acquired a parcel of land at Duasi-Kumasi and began constructing a house. However, after spending approximately USD $7,000 on the project, the mother ran out of funds.
Felicia then stepped in and spent a total of USD $211,000 to complete the building.
Later, the mother returned to Ghana and laid claim to the property. She allegedly promised to gift the house to her younger daughter, Georgina. Felicia said this decision led to a major fallout, culminating in her being denied access to the house and even allegedly assaulted by Georgina.
High Court Decision
At the High Court, the judge ruled that the property in question was jointly acquired by Felicia and her mother.
Court of Appeal Decision
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Felicia appealed. A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Alex Owusu-Ofori (JA), Georgina Mensah-Datsa (JA), and Gifty Detsem (JA), overturned the earlier ruling.
The appellate court held that Felicia was the majority owner of the house and ordered a 70-30 split in her favor.
The court then ordered that the parties reach an agreement for one to buy out the other's interest in the property, after which a judicial sale of the house would be made.




