Management of Family Property in Ghana: Legal Guidelines and Practices

Seth Doe 

Assisted by 

Sarah Asante , Philipa Hagan , Ewurama Mongson

MANAGEMENT OF FAMILY PROPERTY IN GHANA

1. Introduction

Family property occupies a central position in Ghana’s customary land tenure system. Unlike individual ownership, family land is communally owned and held for the collective benefit of persons who trace descent from a common ancestor. The management of family property is entrusted to the family head, who acts not as an owner but as a trustee and fiduciary.

Modern Ghanaian land law has transformed the customary role of the family head into a legally regulated institution governed by statutory duties, constitutional accountability, and judicial oversight. The Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), together with long-established case law, now provides a comprehensive framework for the administration, alienation, accountability, and protection of family property.

This article examines the legal nature of family property, acquisition methods, the distinction between family and self-acquired property, the authority of the family head, fiduciary obligations, litigation control, accountability mechanisms, and appointment and removal of family heads.

2. Meaning and Legal Nature of Family Property

2.1 Statutory Definition

Section 281 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) defines:

Family is a group of persons who trace their ancestry from a common lineage and are recognized under customary law as a land-owning group.

Family land is land whose allodial title is vested in a family for the benefit of its members in accordance with customary law.

The Act further defines allodial title as the highest proprietary interest capable of being held by the State, stool, skin, clan, family, or individual.

This statutory recognition elevates family land to the same proprietary status as stool and state lands and places it under formal legal protection.

3. Jurisdictional Authority Versus Proprietary Ownership

3.1 Ameoda v Podier

The plaintiffs’ family sought to recover possession of land at Ningo, while the defendants argued that the land belonged to the stool on the basis that the community had a chief. The court rejected this argument, holding that the mere existence of a chief does not automatically vest allodial title in the stool. It drew a clear distinction between jurisdictional authority, which relates to governance and leadership functions, and proprietary ownership, which depends on historical settlement and continuous acts of possession. On the evidence, the court found that the land was originally settled and owned by families who had exercised ownership rights over several generations. Accordingly, allodial title vested in the families rather than in the stool, affirming that customary political authority does not in itself confer ownership of land.

4. Family Land as Trust Property

4.1 Nunekpeku v Ametepe

The defendant, a member of the Agbeve family, occupied family land and unlawfully alienated part of it to a stranger without the consent of the family head or principal members. The court held that allodial title to family land is vested in the family and managed by the family head, while individual members possess only usufructuary interests. Any unauthorized alienation by a family member constitutes a breach of customary law and renders the member’s interest liable to forfeiture. Consequently, the family was entitled to recover possession of the land.

5. Acquisition of Family Property

5.1 Ohimen v Adjei

Ollennu J identified four recognized methods by which a family acquires land:

• Conquest and settlement
• Discovery and settlement
• Gift to the family
• Purchase by the family

Although conquest is obsolete under modern law, discovery, purchase, and gift remain valid methods.

5.2 Ngmati v Adetsia

The case concerned a dispute between two Krobo groups over ownership of land, with each asserting original settlement. The court held that under customary law, ownership is determined by the group that first discovered and settled the land and subsequently exercised continuous possession and acts of ownership. On the facts, the land belonged to the group that demonstrated dominant and uninterrupted control. The legal principle established is that discovery and settlement, reinforced by possession, are decisive in determining customary land ownership.

5.3 Tsetsewa v Acquah

Where family members jointly contribute money, labour, and supervision to acquire property, the law raises a strong presumption that the property is family property. Each contributor holds only a life interest, and upon their death, the property vests absolutely in the family rather than passing as individual property.

6. Distinction Between Family Property and Self-Acquired Property

6.1 Heyman v Attipoe

The court held that Family land is managed by the family head. Private property personally acquired remains individual property. Only property acquired for collective family benefit becomes family land.

6.2 Larbi v Cato

The court held that Educational or professional assistance does not convert later-acquired property into family property. Moral obligation does not create legal ownership.

6.3 Cudjoe v Kwatchey 

Minor financial assistance does not transform private acquisitions into family property. Contributions must be substantial and directly connected to the acquisition.

6.4 Boafo v Staudt

The court held that where family funds are used to construct a building on privately acquired land, the building becomes family property. Where a house is built on family land, both land and building remain family property.

6.5 Amissah Abadoo v Abadoo

A man built on family land and devised the house to his wife by will. The court held that domestic assistance does not amount to a substantial financial contribution.

However, building on family land confers only a life interest. Such interest is not alienable by will.

6.6 Nkonnu v Annafi and Kuma v Asante

Extensions and improvements on family property retain family character.

6.7 Nwonama v Asiedu

Where a family property is redeemed from sale or execution, it reverts to family ownership unless expressly stated otherwise.

6.8 Yoguo v Agyekum

Social assistance does not create ownership rights.

7. Authority to Manage and Alienate Family Property

7.1 Statutory Vesting

Section 9(1) of Act 1036 vests family land in the family head in trust for members.

7.2 Allotey v Abrahams

The Supreme Court held that the family head is indispensable in family land transactions. Alienation without his participation is invalid. Consent of all elders is not mandatory. Alienation without full concurrence is voidable, not void. Delay in challenging transactions may lead to estoppel.

7.3 Agbloe v Sappor

The court held that principal members alone cannot convey family land. The family head occupies a trustee position. Legal title cannot pass without his consent.

8. Fiduciary Duties of the Family Head

8.1 Statutory Basis

Section 13(2) of Act 1036 designates the family head as a fiduciary.

8.2 Core Duties

These include:

• Loyalty to family interest
• Care and diligence
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Good faith
• Fairness
• Stewardship
• Avoidance of conflict of interest

8.3 Criminal Liability

Section 13(4) imposes fines and imprisonment for breach of fiduciary duty.

9. Litigation Control Over Family Property

9.1 Procedural Authority

Order 4 Rule 9(2) of CI 47 provides that the family head sues and is sued in representative capacity.

9.2 Kwan v Nyieni 

The Supreme Court held that the family head is ordinarily the proper plaintiff. Members may sue where the head refuses to act, where family division exists, or where the head abuses authority. Authorization by family members is required. Internal remedies must be exhausted.

Action must aim at preserving family property.

9.3 Capacity Cases

Nyamekye v Ansah: Burden lies on claimant to prove headship.

Akrofi v Otenge: Once headship is shown, the burden shifts to the challenger.

Daatsin v Amissah: Failed representative suits attract personal liability for costs.

10. Accountability of Family Heads

10.1 Pre-1985 Position

Fynn v Gardiner: Courts discouraged litigation against family heads.

Hansen v Ankrah: Internal family resolution was preferred.

10.2 Head of Family Accountability Act, 1985 (PNDCL 114)

Key Provisions

Section 1: The family head is accountable.

Section 2: Members may apply to the court for accounts.

Section 2(2): Internal remedies must be exhausted.

Section 3: Courts may compel inventory and disclosure.

10.3 Integration Under Act 1036

Section 13(5) incorporates PNDC Law 114 into modern land governance.

11. Appointment and Removal of Family Heads

11.1 Welbeck v Captan

The court held that families may appoint heads at any time. Headship is not hereditary. Appointment must occur at properly convened family meetings. Absence after due notice does not invalidate decisions. The burden of proof lies on the challengers.

11.2 Supporting Authorities

Lartey v Mensah: Meeting must be convened specifically for the appointment.

Ankrah v Allotey: Factions cannot appoint rival heads.

Banahene v Adinkrah: Observers may attend but not vote.

Abraka v Ambradu: Removal by majority decision.

Allotey v Quarcoo: Courts do not interfere unless natural justice is breached.

12. Conclusion

The management of family property in Ghana has evolved into a regulated fiduciary system grounded in constitutional accountability, statutory enforcement, and judicial supervision. The family head is no longer merely a customary custodian but a legally accountable trustee whose authority exists to preserve communal wealth and ensure intergenerational equity.