Same Grief, Different Rules: Why Ghana Needs Clear Guidelines on Funeral Injunctions

The passing of loved ones is a deeply emotional period, yet legal disputes over burial rights are increasingly prolonging grief for many Ghanaian families. The recent cases involving Daddy Lumba and Apostle Dr. Kwadwo Sarfo Kantanka illustrate how differing judicial approaches can create uncertainty, financial hardship, and public concern about consistency in the administration of justice.

In the Daddy Lumba case, the High Court granted a conditional injunction, requiring the party seeking to halt the burial to deposit GH₵2 million as security. Failure to meet this condition would allow the body to be released to the Abusuapanin (maternal family head) in accordance with Asante customary law. The ruling sought to discourage frivolous litigation while recognising the important role of customary law in determining burial rights.

By contrast, in the case of Apostle Kwadwo Sarfo, whose funeral had already been scheduled with extensive preparations underway, the High Court granted an unconditional 10-day interim injunction following a dispute over succession and funeral arrangements. The order paused all activities without requiring any financial security or providing a default mechanism should the injunction later prove unsuccessful.

While both decisions fall within the court's discretionary powers, the contrasting outcomes have raised legitimate questions about consistency. Similar disputes producing markedly different remedies can create uncertainty and may encourage litigants to seek out courts perceived to be more favourable to their interests.

The consequences extend beyond legal principles. Funeral postponements often result in substantial financial losses, including payments already made for venues, accommodation, catering, publicity, transportation, and mortuary services. Delays also prolong emotional distress for bereaved families and prevent communities from performing cultural and religious obligations to honour the deceased.

These cases demonstrate the urgent need for judicial guidelines governing funeral injunctions. Such guidelines should provide for expedited hearings, reasonable time limits on interim orders, consideration of customary law, and where appropriate, security deposits to discourage unmeritorious applications. Courts should also consider mechanisms for compensating parties who suffer significant financial losses where injunctions are later found to have been unwarranted.

Ghana's Constitution recognises customary law as part of the country's legal system. Consequently, courts should clearly explain how relevant customary practices have been considered when determining burial disputes, while ensuring that constitutional rights and the interests of justice remain paramount.

The deaths of Daddy Lumba and Apostle Dr. Kwadwo Sarfo represent not only the loss of two distinguished national figures but also an opportunity to strengthen the legal processes surrounding funeral disputes. A clear, transparent and consistent framework would reduce uncertainty, protect bereaved families from unnecessary hardship, and preserve the dignity of both the deceased and the justice system.

Justice should be fair, predictable and compassionate. At a time of grief, the law should help families find closure—not deepen their pain. Establishing comprehensive guidelines for funeral injunctions would be an important step towards ensuring that the dead are laid to rest with dignity while disputes are resolved fairly and efficiently.