A High Court in the Eastern Regional capital, Koforidua, on January 27 this year sentenced a 115-year old woman into prison for contempt of court in a protracted litigation over inheritance of a family property dating back to 1945. The woman, Madam Abena Fatima (plaintiff), was jailed two months after the High Court and Appeals Court had ruled against her since year 2002 to quit her father's house. This was because the property in question had been entered in favour of her paternal family members, according to her son Kwame Asumeng. He said his mother was sentenced by the Koforidua High Court 'One', presided over by Justice Sorobawo, when she was summoned for her intransigent stance to heed to the court's decision to vacate the house. Mr Asumeng quoted his mother as saying, "She told the court that she had nowhere to live and moreover, the house she currently lives in belongs to her late father and was even prepared to go to prison in her defence". He said his mother's remark and conduct was considered derogatory to the court and was consequently sentenced to two months imprisonment, adding that "we did not have a counsel at court on that day to plead on her (the old woman’s) behalf”. A copy of the High court ruling on the case made available to ‘The New Crusading Guide' dated 24th January, 2002 and signed by his Lordship Justice K.A. Acquaye, noted that the Plaintiff Madam Abena Fatima and the defendants Kwasi Appiah Twum and Akua Aduako are all residents of Koforidua. The plaintiff had pleaded in her statement to the court that her late father and mother jointly built the house numbered F.7 at Odwaa near Jackson Park in Koforidua. She said her father later incurred a debt and when his house was about to be sold in a public action her mother was able to raise a loan to pay off the debt. She said this prompted her father to express gratitude to his wife by arranging a meeting with his maternal family and gave a plot of land with cement blocks and the entire building to his wife and children. The plaintiff named some of the witnesses present at the meeting and stated that they were all dead. She testified further that there was a document to prove her late father's decision but his customary successor after his (her father’s) death lured her mother and collected the document which was used in renovating the house. She claimed her father’s successor had refused to return the document after the completion of the renovation works. The plaintiff continued that her father’s successor (Kwasi Appiah Twum), who was the first defendant in the case, allocated a room to his elder brother and rented another room and a store room to tenants. She added that the piece of land and blocks that were bequeathed to her father's family had already been sold whilst the second defendant (Akua Aduako) had built a new room on a land attached to the house despite protests to insist that the house was a parting gift to her late mother and that the defendant cannot arbitrary succeed to it as their family property. But the defendants who are both nephew and nice respectively to the Plaintiff's father denied any gift to the plaintiff mother. The first defendant in his counterclaim rejected the assertion by plaintiff that the house was a joint property of her mother and father, contending that it was a self acquired property of the plaintiff’s father. The defendant testified that the plot on which the house in contention stands was a replacement to his family when a family house was demolished to pave way for the construction of the Koforidua Jackson's Park. He said when his uncle died, his wife (plaintiff’s mother) informed him that the deceased was indebted to her to the tune of 92 pounds (in those days) for which her husband had pledged her the house in return. According to the defendant, he paid 102 pounds with an interest of 10 pounds to the plaintiff's mother, and demanded that two of her children, including the plaintiff be given two rooms in the house. The defendant also stated that he had been paying property rates in the name of his deceased uncle and exhibited to the court evidence of some receipts to that effect. He denied the existence of any deed of gift, explaining that the land that was attached to the house was sold purposely to raise money to pay the claims by the plaintiff's mother. The court in its ruling stated that the evidence on record to prove the disputed house as gift by the plaintiff's father to her mother and children was missing. The court rejected the evidence of the plaintiff because it failed to prove the essential ingredients of a valid customary gift and on the other hand accepted defendant’s evidence to support their claims that they (defendants) had been in possession of the house since the death of the plaintiff's father in 1945. Source: New Crusading Guide/Ghana