GH - ASANTE v. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.

The plaintiff, by her amended writ of summons, claims, for herself and on behalf of her children, a declaration that there is no legally binding trust in favour of herself and the children of the late Asante, a former employee of the University of Ghana; and that the said university, who are the defendants herein, be ordered to release to the plaintiff the sum of ¢5,410.00 due from them to the plaintiff and her said children, as the beneficiaries of the late Asante.

[p.89]

It is clear from the pleadings that the material facts in the case are not in dispute. Thus, on 9 March 1972 after discussions with counsel, it was agreed that the only important issue in the matter is the issue set out in paragraph 1 (b) of the summons for directions, namely, "whether or not the investment constitutes a trust binding on the plaintiff personally, and for and on behalf of her children." The decision on that issue depended, mainly, on the construction to be put on certain documents. So both counsel agreed that the cause should be disposed of by legal argument. Consequently, all the documents relevant to the case were tendered in evidence by consent.

The facts may be summarized as follows. The husband of the plaintiff, called Alfred B. Asante, was on the staff of the defendants during his lifetime. Some time before September 1962, the plaintiff's said husband, by a document commonly known as and called nomination paper, disposed of the benefits due to him from the defendants. But on 23 September 1962, he cancelled the said nomination paper and made a fresh one in which he asked the defendants to pay on his death seven-eighth's portion of his said benefits to the plaintiff and her children, and the remaining one-eighth to his brother, called Lawrence Y. Appiah.

In October 1962, the defendants established a superannuation scheme for their employees. All members of the senior and junior staff, who were appointed to "permanent established posts" in the university, were eligible to become members of the scheme. The plaintiff's husband was then holding a "permanent established post" and was therefore considered to have joined the scheme which came into effect as from 1 October 1962. According to the provisions of the said scheme, which was tendered in evidence as exhibit 1, the defendants were under an obligation to take life insurance policies for the members of the scheme. The policies were to be taken in the name of defendants. But the premiums, nec

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.

[p.89]

ASANTE v. UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

Areas of Law

Judgement