The simmering legal dispute over the estate of the late highlife icon Daddy Lumba entered a new procedural phase today in a Kumasi court.
Akosua Serwaa, one of the two wives recently declared as such by a High Court ruling, appeared in relation to her application for Letters of Administration (LA), seeking to take charge of Lumba’s estate/properties.
However, the hearing was swiftly adjourned sine die—indefinitely, without a set return date—following a decisive legal intervention by the other recognised wife, Odo Broni.
Akosua Serwaa filed her application for LA just yesterday, initiating a process that would grant her legal authority to administer and distribute Daddy Lumba’s estate, presumed to be intestate (without a will). However, upon learning of this unilateral move, Odo Broni and her legal team promptly filed a caveat with the court.
A caveat is a formal legal notice that acts as a warning or block, preventing the Probate Division of the High Court from issuing a grant of representation—in this case, the Letters of Administration—without first notifying the caveator (Odo Broni) and allowing them to be heard.
While the exact wording of the caveat is not public, the substance is clear and grounded in the recent High Court declaration that affirmed both Akosua Serwaa and Odo Broni as Daddy Lumba’s surviving spouses. Under Ghanaian law, specifically Order 66 Rule 13 of C.I. 47, surviving spouses hold the highest, equal priority to apply for Letters of Administration when a person dies intestate.
Therefore, the core argument lodged by Odo Broni’s caveat is likely this: Akosua Serwaa cannot unilaterally apply for and receive sole authority over the estate. Such an application fundamentally ignores the co-equal legal status of the other spouse. It is procedurally improper and contravenes the statutory order of priority, which does not permit one spouse to bypass another in the administration process.
When the case was called today, Odo Broni’s lawyers formally notified the presiding judge of the filed caveat. The judge’s response was procedurally decisive. By adjourning the matter sine die, the court has effectively suspended Akosua Serwaa’s application indefinitely.
The caveat now stands as a formidable barrier; the court cannot proceed to grant the LA without first resolving the objections raised by Odo Broni. This could involve a hearing to determine the validity of the caveat or requiring the parties to find a way forward, potentially through a joint application for administration.
This development highlights the legal flaws in Akosua Serwaa’s solo application, as previously analysed by me. It reinforces the principle that where there are multiple surviving spouses, the estate administration process must reflect their shared standing. The judge’s swift adjournment upon learning of the caveat signals the court’s adherence to due process and the statutory framework governing intestacy.
Furthermore, this procedural clash brings back to the forefront the unresolved question: Did Daddy Lumba leave a will? The entire premise of an LA application is intestacy. If a will exists, this application is not only contentious but fundamentally in the wrong legal lane.
The caveat and subsequent adjournement now force a pause, during which the fundamental issue of testacy (whether there is a will) may finally need to be clarified by the family or Lumba’s legal representatives before any administration process can legitimately proceed.
For now, the gates to Daddy Lumba’s estate remain legally locked, with the key held not by one individual, but by a process that must honour the rights of all rightful beneficiaries, starting with his two lawfully recognised wives.
So Akosua Serwaa is back to square one on this.
The law is the law–I did not make the law.
–Chris-Vincent Agyapong, A Lawyer, Hedonist, Contrarian, Atheist, Thinker, Writer, Minimalist, Polygamy Evangelist, Soft Life Ambassador & A Professional Truth Sayer
