A Kumasi High Court has ruled that the body of a deceased person belongs to the family and not the partner 

The court observed that, irrespective of the form of the marriage contracted in Ghana, customary law is applied in the unlikely event of the death of the partner

 Justice Dorinda Smith Arthur, in her ruling on an interlocutory injunction application seeking to enjoin the burial and funeral service of legendary highlife musician Charles Kwadwo Fosuh, aka Daddy Lumba, says the matrilineal family is entitled to a deceased person’s body and funeral rites.

It follows the court’s refusal of an injunction application brought against the head of the family, Priscilla Ofori, also known as Odo Broni, and the Transitions Funeral Home by Akosua Serwaa, who identifies herself as the only surviving wife of the late musician.

Dorinda Smith-Arthur's court was characterised by heated legal arguments and banter as counsel for the plaintiff and defendants battled it out to advance their positions on the law.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, led by William Kusi, had spent 56 minutes to advance his arguments, praying the court to absorb his client’s plea to prevent the head of the family and another woman who also identifies as the wife of the musician, the funeral home, as well as their assigns, from moving the body and conducting the burial and funeral rites of the late musician

Plaintiff counsel averred, Akosua Serwaa is the only surviving spouse since she has a certificate of Civil Ordinance Marriage issued in Germany, and she ran to court knowing very well that the law was on her side as the only surviving wife.

This, he said, is an indication that the late musician cannot be married to another woman.

Referring to several legal authorities, including the Practice Direction of 2024, lawyer William Kusi argued the application was not strange and that it was known by law since due procedure was followed.

Quoting paragraph 3 of the practice, he said the plaintiff filed the application promptly, that is, on October 3, 2025.

But the hopes of the plaintiff’s relatives being granted by the court were shot down when defence lawyers questioned the legitimacy of the evidence put before the court in the form of a purported marriage certificate of the marriage of the late musician.

They also pointed out procedural errors in the interpretation of the certificate, claiming it did not comply with Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

They pleaded Exhibit A1 could not be admissible since it was in Dutch and should have been certified by the German authorities, Ghana’s consul in Hamburg, and further interpreted by approved institutions in Ghana.

On the part of the counsel of Transition Funeral Home, the evidential burden of duty was not met by the applicant as prescribed by Section 11 of the Evidence Act

But the human rights court, which also has to make a determination of the substantive application filed by Akosua Serwaa, who is seeking to be recognised as the only surviving spouse of the late Ghanaian music legend, Charles Kwadwo Fosuh, popularly known as Daddy Lumba, refused the injunction application.

Presiding Judge, Her Ladyship Dorinda Smith Arthur, who cited Order 25, Arthur, rule 1:1 of the High Court (Civil Procedures) Rules, 2004, and several legal authorities, assured parties her ruling shall be just and convenient as she refused the application.

Lawyer for the defendants, Dominic Kwadwo Osei, the counsel for the 1^st respondent, Abusuapanin Kofi Owusu, said, “It has been by dint of hard work from the team. As the judge read (ruling), I was very confident in our position.

"We had an objective. Our objectives first, to ensure that any impediment, such as this injunction, would be denied by the court for the proper burial to proceed.

"What the judge read sounded like someone who appreciated both arguments; saw the superior argument from our side-from Baba Jamal and Associates, and sided with our position, so we are very, very happy, ‘ he said.

“It also means victory for the family. What it means is that now bury this giant of a musician and then look at other matters.”

Meanwhile, the court has set out plans to rule on the substance case by November 25, 2025.

The court has set November 14, 2025, for case management.