GH - ANIM-ADDO AND OTHERS v. MENSAH AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.

The facts which gave rise to this dispute are relatively straightforward and are as follows: Patrick Kwaku Anim-Addo (hereinafter referred to as the testator) who died on 5 February 1988 left a will dated 5 September 1987. In the will, he made, inter alia, the following bequests:

"I appoint Mrs. Addae Mensah alias Nana Abena Biama as one of the executors to administer my interest in the company of Ghana Textile Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and to pay the benefits and profits to Abena Asantewa my niece in her lifetime and after her death should pass on to the descendants of her children. I give and bequeath all my trinkets (gold) to my niece Abena Asantewa and after her death to pass on to her descendants.

I appoint Yaw Asirifi and Gideon Nyarku to run Kwanin Trading Co. Ltd. as directors and to administer the company and to invest the benefits and profits to the descendants of Abena Asantewa. I devise and bequeath the residue of my real estate to my trustees upon trust as follows: As to houses, to collect rents and after [p.47] paying annual rates, taxes, etc. to invest the net rents in government bonds, and as to personal estate upon trust to call in and convert into money and if need arises and to invest for the benefit of the descendants of Abena Asantewa.

I direct that any property of mine including investments which has been left out and not mentioned under this will including lands should pass on to Abena Asantewa and after her death should pass on to her descendants."

(The emphasis is mine.)

It is the case of the plaintiffs who are the children of the testator that the dispositions "to the descendants of Abena Asantewa" sin against the perpetuities rule as the descendants of Abena Asantewa born 21 years from the testator's death or born after the death of all those living at the death of the testator would benefit. Secondly, the plaintiffs contend that as a class gift, the dispositions are null and void for uncertainty of the number of the class which would benefit under the bequests. Thirdly, the plaintiffs argue that the bequests are void because they are against the rule on accumulations. Fourthly, the plaintiffs maintain that the bequests are void as they are against the rule on inalienability.

On those premises, the plaintiffs contend that if the bequests are void, the testator died intestate and therefore the testator's properties, as far as the plaintiffs' children are concerned, should be distributed in accordance w

JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.

(The emphasis is mine.)

ANIM-ADDO AND OTHERS v. MENSAH AND OTHERS

Areas of Law

Judgement