A persistent and misleading narrative has been pushed suggesting that the late highlife legend, Daddy Lumba, acquired and held his significant assets in Ghana—including properties and businesses—in joint names with Akosua Serwaa. A straightforward examination of legal principles, financial logic, and verifiable public records exposes this claim as a complete fabrication.
The most decisive proof against this joint ownership myth lies in Akosua Serwaa’s own protracted legal battles. If she were genuinely a joint owner of assets like the East Legon house, lands, or DL FM, her legal path would have been simple and incontestable.
- Joint Tenancy & Right of Survivorship: Under property law, if two parties hold an asset as joint tenants, the survivor automatically inherits the entire asset upon the other’s death. No court case is needed; it is a matter of presenting the title deed to the relevant registry.
- Tenancy-in-Common: If they held assets as tenants-in-common, her share (e.g., 50%) would be clearly documented. She would merely need to prove this ownership stake to claim her portion.
Instead, she engaged in expensive and contentious litigation seeking to be declared a surviving spouse to claim a share of the estate. This is the action of someone trying to establish a right through inheritance law, not someone asserting a pre-existing, documented property right. Her chosen legal strategy conclusively proves the absence of any joint ownership documents.
Ownership of real property and companies in Ghana is not secret. It is a matter of public record.
Land Registry: The title to the East Legon house and any other lands would be registered at the Lands Commission. A joint ownership would be explicitly stated on the indenture or land title certificate.
Registrar of Companies: The ownership structure of DL FM and any incorporated business is filed with the Registrar-General’s Department. Shareholders and directors are a matter of public record.
If joint ownership existed, it would be the first and most powerful evidence presented. The failure to produce a single such document—and instead relying on marital status claims—speaks volumes. In law, the absence of evidence where evidence would naturally exist is itself evidence against the claim.
The claim defies all rational financial and personal behavior. Daddy Lumba is widely understood to have started a new family life with Odo Broni. The notion that a man building a new legacy would deliberately and legally entwine the major assets of his newfound life (like a newly built East Legon mansion) with a previous partner is illogical. Sensible asset management, especially for a public figure with complex family dynamics, involves clear and separate titling to avoid exactly this kind of dispute. Joint acquisitions are typically acts of unity and shared enterprise, not common following a separation.
Those asserting the existence of these joint assets bear the legal and evidentiary burden. It is not for the public or the courts to disprove a phantom claim, but for the claimants to produce the deeds, certificates, and bank records. Their continued failure to do so, while pursuing an alternative, more difficult legal avenue, is the most telling rebuttal.
To me, the claim that Daddy Lumba held assets jointly with Akosua Serwaa is a legal and factual impossibility, contradicted by:
- Her own choice of litigation (spousal inheritance claim vs. property right assertion).
- The complete lack of any publicly filed or produced documentary evidence.
- The implausible financial behaviour the narrative requires.
In the realm of law and evidence, this narrative holds no weight. The assets in question formed part of Daddy Lumba’s individual estate, and their distribution is governed solely by the rules of intestate succession or the terms of any valid will—not by non-existent joint ownership agreements. The truth is found in the silence of the land registry and the company register, not in unsupported public statements.
The law is the law—I didn’t make the law.
—Chris-Vincent Agyapong
