The legal battle over the estate and marital status of Daddy Lumba, took a dramatic turn at the Kumasi High after his sister testified that there was no marriage between the musician and his long-time partner, Priscilla Ofori, also known as Odo Broni.
Ernestina Fosuh, also known as Akosua Brempomaah, appeared under oath before Her Ladyship Dorinda Smith-Arthur to give evidence in a suit filed by Akosua Serwaa Fosuh, who claims to be Daddy Lumba’s legal wife.
Akosua Serwaa Fosuh is petitioning the court for a declaration that she is the only surviving spouse of the deceased musician and, therefore, the sole person entitled to perform widowhood rites. She is also seeking an order to restrain Priscilla Ofori from referring to herself as the late musician’s wife.
Testifying during cross-examination, Ernestina Fosuh confirmed she was aware of the relationship between her late brother and Odo Broni, a union that produced six children, including one child named after the witness.
However, she was emphatic that the relationship never culminated in a marriage.
Conversely, Ms. Fosuh insisted that her late brother married the plaintiff, Akosua Serwaa Fosuh, in both customary and civil ceremonies. She stated that she personally witnessed the customary marriage at Bomso in 1991 and the civil marriage in Germany in 2004.
The witness provided insights into the late star’s personal affairs, revealing that Daddy Lumba had relocated to Ghana to oversee a housing project and receive treatment for a back injury sustained in a lorry accident.
When questioned by defence counsel Dominic Kwadwo Osei about why the plaintiff, Akosua Serwaa Fosuh, did not relocate to Ghana to join her husband, Ernestina Fosuh explained that her brother had advised his wife against frequent travel due to the high cost of air tickets.
She further introduced the issue of a €50,000 loan her brother allegedly contracted from a financial institution in Germany, claiming this was a factor in the decision to limit his wife’s trips.
Defence lawyer Mr. Osei challenged the existence of the loan, leading to a heated exchange where the witness was unable to provide immediate written proof.
However, Ernestina Fosuh insisted the evidence, written in Dutch, was available on her phone, asserting she was only relaying what her brother had confided in her.
The defence pressed on, drawing attention to a previous reply by the Plaintiff on October 29, 2025, which cited the loan amount as €100,000, not €50,000, suggesting the witness’s account was misleading. Ms. Fosuh stood her ground, maintaining that she had told the court what she knew.
