The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling and nullified a 40-year lease over a property located at Okaishie, Accra, which had been acquired by Ofori Transport Ltd.
The unanimous decision, delivered by a panel made up of Justices Angela Mensah-Homiah, Alexander Osei Tutu, and Charles A. Wilson on June 25, 2026, found that the lease was invalid after examining key legal issues surrounding estate administration, ownership of estate property, the authority of administrators, contract interpretation, trust obligations, and legal requirements for documents executed by illiterate persons.
The dispute involved beneficiaries and administrators of the estate of the late James Macpherson Attram, who died in 1926. At the center of the case was Property No. D771/4 on Beach Avenue, Okaishie, which forms part of the deceased’s estate.
According to the case, Emma Okoryo Attram, acting as administratrix of the estate in 1980, granted Ofori Transport Ltd. an additional 40-year lease after the expiration of an earlier 50-year lease and a subsequent 25-year renewal period.
However, the appellants challenged the validity of the transaction, arguing that Emma Okoryo Attram lacked the legal authority to execute the lease because she was neither the head of the family nor a duly recognized administratrix at the time. They also questioned the authenticity of the lease, pointing out that the document lacked a jurat despite being signed by an illiterate person.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal strongly criticized the legal handling of the transaction, stating that the lease was executed without the required consent and concurrence of family members, resulting in estate property being treated as personal property.
Justice Alexander Osei Tutu also questioned the professional conduct of the lawyer involved, expressing surprise that an experienced legal practitioner would oversee such a transaction without ensuring the proper legal authority and family approval had been obtained before the lease was executed.
The court further ruled that the absence of a jurat on the lease was a significant legal defect. It rejected the argument that the document’s alleged preparation by a lawyer automatically cured the omission, noting that the lease contained no endorsement identifying the legal practitioner responsible for drafting it, as required by law.
Based on these findings, the Court of Appeal declared the 40-year lease invalid and set it aside.
