The dispute over the estate of the late Highlife icon Daddy Lumba deepened at the Kumasi High Court when his sister firmly rejected claims that the musician ever married his long-time partner, Priscilla Ofori, popularly known as Odo Broni. Her testimony formed part of the ongoing legal action initiated by Akosua Serwaa Fosuh, who asserts that she is the musician’s only legally recognised spouse.
The plaintiff is seeking a judicial declaration that she alone qualifies as Lumba’s surviving wife and should therefore be the one to perform all widowhood obligations. She is also asking the court to prevent Odo Broni from describing herself as the musician’s wife.
Appearing under oath before Her Ladyship Dorinda Smith-Arthur, Ernestina Fosuh — also known as Akosua Brempomaah — recounted her knowledge of her brother’s relationships. She acknowledged that Lumba and Odo Broni shared a long-standing bond that resulted in six children, including one named after her. Despite this, she insisted the relationship never advanced into a legally recognised marriage.
Ernestina maintained that the only marriage her brother contracted was with the plaintiff. According to her, she was present when the couple underwent customary rites at Bomso in 1991, and she also witnessed their civil marriage in Germany in 2004.
The witness went on to describe aspects of the late musician’s personal life, explaining that he had returned to Ghana to supervise a building project and receive care after suffering a back injury in a lorry accident. During cross-examination, defence counsel Dominic Kwadwo Osei asked why the plaintiff did not relocate to Ghana despite her husband’s return. Ernestina responded that travel costs were a major consideration and that her brother preferred to limit her movements due to the expense involved.
She also mentioned that her brother had reportedly obtained a €50,000 loan from a financial institution in Germany, which she suggested contributed to the decision to reduce the plaintiff’s travel. This claim was challenged by the defence, who pointed out that the plaintiff’s earlier reply filed on October 29, 2025, referenced a €100,000 loan instead. The inconsistency prompted a tense moment in court, particularly when the witness was unable to immediately provide written proof of the alleged facility, though she claimed the documentation existed on her phone in Dutch.
The witness concluded her testimony by maintaining that she had presented the court with the details her brother shared with her. The court proceedings continue as both sides push for control over the late musician’s estate and the legal recognition of his surviving spouse.
