Widow Akosua Serwaa Fosuh Files Amended Appeal, Cites Errors on German Marriage Evidence and Customary Marriage Finding Court of Appeal to challenge Her Ladyship Justice Dorinda Smith Arthur’s judgement
Daddy Lumba Estate Case Deepens: Widow Akosua Serwaa Fosuh Files Amended Appeal, Cites Errors on German Marriage Evidence and Customary Marriage Finding
Court of Appeal, Kumasi to hear June 11 application as legal team argues trial judge misapplied evidence law and burden of proof
The legal battle over the estate of late highlife legend Charles Kwadwo Fosu, known as Daddy Lumba, has intensified with a detailed amended appeal filed at the Court of Appeal, Kumasi.
Akosua Serwaa Fosuh, described in court documents as Plaintiff/Appellant with an address at Schwester-Ermelindis Weg 9, Bornheim Sechtem 53332, Germany, is seeking leave to amend her Notice of Appeal against a High Court, Kumasi judgment delivered November 28, 2025 by Her Ladyship Justice Dorinda Smith Arthur.
The suit, No. GJ12/20/2026, names three Defendants/Respondents: 1) Abusua-Panin Kofi Owusu of Abuakwa, Kumasi, 2) Priscilla Ofori a.k.a. Odo Broni of Accra, and 3) Transitions Funeral Home a.k.a. Enterprise Funeral Services of Haatso, Asore Junction, Atomic Road, Accra.
The Court of Appeal is scheduled to move the “Notice of Motion: Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal” on June 11, 2026 at 9:00 AM.
What the amended filing seeks
Filed in May 2026 at Maalo Chambers, Accra by Stephen Nsiah Opoku of Kulendi @ Law, the application follows an original Notice of Appeal filed December 1, 2025 and Additional Grounds of Appeal filed February 3, 2026.
In a sworn affidavit deposed by Amma Ampong Agyeman-Prepeh on May 28, 2026, counsel states a review revealed some grounds “were not particularised as required under Rule 8(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I. 19” and that there are “new grounds of appeal that the Applicant wishes to canvass.” The proposed Amended Notice of Appeal is marked “Exhibit D” and was filed on 04/06/26 at 10:30am according to the court stamp.
The appellant is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire High Court judgment and enter judgment in her favour.
Detailed grounds and particulars of error
Combining the original, additional, and amended grounds, the appellant alleges multiple errors of law and fact by the trial court. All allegations remain claims and are yet to be proven:
1. Existence of civil marriage contracted in Germany
Ground 1 of the Amended Notice: “The Learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to prove the existence of a valid monogamous civil marriage contracted in Germany between the Plaintiff/Appellant and the deceased, Charles Kwadwo Fosu alias Daddy Lumba.”
Particulars include:
– The judge conflated “proof of foreign law with proof of the fact of the ordinance marriage contracted in Germany.”
– Evidence led by the plaintiff, including cohabitation, public representations by the deceased, eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, issues of the union, documentary evidence, and correspondence from the German Embassy in Ghana, “substantially corroborated the existence of the said ordinance marriage.”
– The judge treated “alleged deficiencies in the authentication of the foreign marriage documents as conclusive proof of the non-existence of the marriage itself.”
– The plaintiff bore a burden to prove marriage on a “preponderance of probability” which was met by “overwhelming evidence on record,” including “uncontroverted evidence of the Plaintiff/Appellant’s marriage ceremony to the deceased, conduct and public representations of the deceased during his lifetime.”
2. Admissibility of Exhibits B, B1 and C
Grounds 5 and 6 allege the trial judge erred when she held that Marriage Certificate Exhibits B, B1 and C were not admissible per se, despite having admitted them into evidence at the start of trial and overruling respondents’ objection to authenticity.
Particulars:
– Rejecting the exhibits in the final judgment “amounted to an exercise of a review jurisdiction over its previous decision which jurisdiction the Court lacked.”
– The judge acted “in excess of her original jurisdiction when having admitted Exhibits B, B1 and C in her ruling of 17th November, 2025, she nonetheless overturned her own previous decision.”
– She “descended into the arena of litigation” by _suo motu_ revisiting the November 17, 2025 ruling to advance the case of respondents who had filed no appeal against that ruling.
– After admitting the exhibits, the court still put the “onus of proof of authenticity” on the appellant, failing to appreciate the distinction between legal burden and evidential burden. Once admitted after objection, the appellant “no longer bore any burden of proof of authenticity” and the burden shifted to respondents to disprove the marriage or establish forgery.
3. Authentication under the Evidence Act
Ground 2 argues error in interpreting Sections 136 and 161 of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323.
Particulars:
– Section 161 was wrongly treated as a “mandatory and exclusive condition precedent” to admissibility of foreign documents, when it “merely provides a statutory basis for presumptive authenticity of foreign official signatures.”
– The absence of certification by the Ghana Embassy in Germany was treated as “conclusively fatal… notwithstanding the substantial corroborative evidence on record.”
– Section 136 permits authentication “by evidence or any sufficient showing capable of supporting a finding” that the item is what the proponent claims.
4. Court’s handling of authentication process
Ground 7 claims error in treating the plaintiff’s inability to authenticate the German certificate as a choice within her control.
Particulars:
– The judge directed counsel to have documents authenticated without giving “reasonable time for Ghana’s Embassy in Germany to execute certification.”
– The court “misdirected itself by imposing a duty… to compel the Ghanaian Embassy” and should have “waited for the said authenticated signature” or used its own expert witness.
– The judge “unduly hastened to give judgment by refusing to accommodate” the certification process, “sacrificing procedural fairness for hasty record-time judgment.”
5. Customary marriage finding
Ground 9: “The Court erred when it held that 2nd Respondent was validly married under Akan custom in April 2010 by the late Charles Kwadwo Fosu a.k.a. Daddy Lumba when there was no credible evidence on record to support it.”
Particulars:
– The trial judge ignored “uncontroverted evidence on record such as ‘photoshopped’ or edited pictures” suggesting no valid customary marriage existed.
– Uncorroborated evidence from the 1st and 2nd Defendants was relied on, while “unchallenged evidence showed that the 1st Defendant’s evidence-in-chief was fundamentally hearsay.”
– Evidence showed the plaintiff denied the 2nd Defendant being customarily married to Daddy Lumba, yet the court made an “insidious conclusion” that the 2nd Defendant was held out as a legal wife, an assertion “not challenged by the Plaintiff.”
– These “erroneous assumptions and inferences consistently undermined and collapsed the case of the Plaintiff whereas painting a perfect story for the Defendants.”
6. Other procedural and factual issues
– Ground 8 disputes the court’s finding that counsel admitted the original marriage documents were “an extract from a family book or diary and therefore not proof of a civil marriage.” The appellant calls this a “fatal and wrongful deduction.”
– Ground 10: “The Judgement is against the weight of evidence.”
– Additional particulars argue a “reasonable mind” would have shifted the burden of disproving the German marriage to the defendants, and failure to do so “led to a miscarriage of justice.”
Change of legal representation and service
A “Notice of Change of Solicitors” dated April 20, 2026 at Maalo Chambers, Accra, notifies the Registrar that Ms. Fosuh appointed Stephen Nsiah Opoku, Solicitor’s Licence No. eGAR 00051/26, of Kulendi @ Law, No. 10A Bortey Avenue, Airport Residential Area, Accra, replacing William Kusi, Esq.
Copies are to be served on: Abusua-Panin Kofi Owusu, Abuakwa-Kumasi; Priscilla Ofori a.k.a. Odo Broni, Accra; and Transitions Funeral Home a.k.a. Enterprise Funeral Services, Haatso, Asore Junction, Atomic Road, Accra.
Background and next steps
The action was commenced in the High Court, Kumasi on October 2, 2025, following the death of Daddy Lumba in July 2025. The dispute centers on claims of marital status and entitlement to the estate of the musician.
The June 11 hearing will determine only whether leave is granted to amend the notice of appeal. If granted, the Court of Appeal will then hear the substantive appeal on the new and particularised grounds.
All allegations in the court filings are claims by the appellant. The respondents have the right to respond, and the Court of Appeal will determine the matter based on evidence and applicable law. Parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction.
By Farah Amoateng and Alexander Afriyie