Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 15, 2023
CORAM
KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO, JA:
i. Introduction:
[1] The application before us is for an order to set aside the Order of this Court differently constituted dated December 15, 2020 which substituted Gifty Nartey for Charles Fiifi Ocansey (deceased) the original 2nd Plaintiff in this case and for a further order of substituting Teresa Ocansey for Charles Fiifi Ocansey. The application was filed on 10th February, 2023 and is supported by the affidavit and supplementary affidavit of Christian Hammond sworn on 10th February, 2023 and March 13, 2023 respectively.
[2] The pith and substance of the application is that Madam Gifty Nartey is not a beneficiary of the Will, the subject matter of the suit which is on appeal and was not instructed by the beneficiaries. It is also contended that the written submission filed by Gifty Nartey through her Counsel “is contrary to the case put forward by the father of the Applicant in the High Court”. And, as a result should she be allowed to remain a party the interest of the beneficiaries of the estate of Charles Fiifi Ocansey stand to suffer by her actions.
[3] The application is opposed by Gifty Nartey, the 2nd Plaintiff and on March 9, 2023 she filed an affidavit in opposition. There is also an affidavit of one Kwesi Tetteh Dadzie, who describes himself as the “Head of Family of the late Charles Ocansey Snr’s Family” also filed on March 9, 2023. Madam Nartey’s prayed the Court to dismiss the application on the grounds that the order made by this Court differently constituted was validly made without any defect because the Head of family and the larger customary family nominated her to be a party. She denied the depositions of the Applicant and deposed that the written submission filed will not in any way adversely prejudice the interest of the estate of the late Charles Fiifi Ocansey. The affidavit of Kwesi Tetteh Dadzie re-echoed the depositions of Madam Nartey to the effect that she was nominated by the larger family and her presence as a party will not injure, prejudice or harm the case of the estate.
ii. The Submission of Counsel:
[4] Speaking to the application, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the 2nd Plaintiff’s presence as a Plaintiff harms the interest of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents because the submission filed by her Counsel is at variance with the position of the Plaintiffs/Respondent and undermines the judgment of the court below, which they as Plaintiffs
are to defend in this Court. Counsel
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal considered an interlocutory application in an ongoing appeal arising from a High Court judgment concerning the estate of the late Charles Fiifi Ocansey. A single judge had, on December 15, 2020, ex parte substituted Gifty Nartey as 2nd Plaintiff to replace the deceased original 2nd Plaintiff. The present Applicant asked the Court to set aside that order and to substitute Teresa Ocansey instead, supported by affidavits sworn by Christian Hammond. The Applicant argued that Gifty Nartey is not a beneficiary and that her written submissions, including prayers for part of the estate to be treated as intestate, are adverse to the beneficiaries’ position and the Respondents’ duty to defend the High Court’s judgment. Nartey, backed by an affidavit from Kwesi Tetteh Dadzie (Head of Family), opposed, claiming family nomination and no prejudice. The Court, invoking Rule 31 of C.I. 19 and its inherent powers, found Nartey’s stance aligned with the Appellants and harmful to co‑Plaintiffs, and granted substitution, replacing Nartey with Teresa Ocansey.