AMPOFO v. POKU
January 12, 1959
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- VAN LARE AG. C.J.
- GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.
- OLLENNU J
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
January 12, 1959
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Van Lare Ag. C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court:.
The only substance in this appeal is that the order granting Letters of Administration to the respondent is, unfortunately, wrongly worded. We think that the Judge’s final order should have followed the language of sub-rule 2 of Rule 21 of Order 60, as the function, of the Judge was “to determine the issue as to who is entitled to a grant of probate or Letters of Administration, as the case may be.”
'This was an application for a grant of Letters of Administration, and therefore upon determination the Judge should only have declared the respondent to be the person entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration. This in effect means that the respondent
will have formally to apply to the Divisional Court for a grant of letters of Administration to him, and he well have to go through the normal formalities.
DECISION
Subject to this variation of the judgment appealed from the appeal is dismissed, with costs fixed at £ 21 Os. Od.
AI Generated Summary
Van Lare Ag. C.J., delivering the judgment of the Court with Granville Sharp J.A. and Ollennu J. on the panel, addressed an appeal concerning the form of an order in probate-related proceedings. The lower court had issued an order granting Letters of Administration to the respondent. The appellate court explained that the only substance of the appeal was the wording of that order, which was unfortunately incorrect. Invoking Order 60 Rule 21(2), the Court stated that the judge’s function in such an application is to determine who is entitled to a grant and to declare that entitlement, rather than to issue the grant in the same proceedings. It clarified that, following a declaration, the respondent must apply formally to the Divisional Court for the grant and complete the usual formalities. The Court varied the judgment to correct the form but dismissed the appeal, fixing costs at £21 0s 0d.