2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant challenged the High Court's ruling that dismissed his action to set aside consent judgments concerning the estate of his deceased father, Honourable David Lamptey, on grounds of fraud and non-compliance with the Children's Act. The appellant alleged that the estate distribution favored adult beneficiaries and neglected his welfare as a minor. The High Court had dismissed the suit without allowing evidence, terming it frivolous and vexatious. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred by not allowing a trial to investigate these claims. The appeal succeeded, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a trial by a different judge.
AGYEMANG JA:
In this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of 26th November 2014, the appellant seeks the following reliefs: that the judgment of the High Court be set aside, that the suit be restored to the record, and that same should be remitted for trial before the High Court.
These are the matters antecedent to the appeal.
The late Honourable David Lamptey was by all accounts a rich man who died possessed of many properties.
He was survived by his wife(whom he named co-executrix of his last Will and Testament), and seven children - the 3rd to 8th Defendants/respondents, as well as the plaintiff/appellant.
After the death of the testator, the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents- named executors, applied for probate of the Will of the deceased.
A number of caveats were filed by the 3rd –10th defendants as well as the plaintiff against the grant.
In this regard, the plaintiff sued out a writ of summons titled: Suit BDP779/2013 In the matter of the estate of the late Honourable David Lamptey (Deceased) of House Number 198 Umbra Avenue, Trassaco Valley Estate, Accra.
And In the Matter of the Application for the Grant of Probate by Mrs. Gifty Lamptey and Dr. Victor Kanda.
In order to resolve the issues raised by the caveats, efforts were made to settle the matter amicably.
The efforts yielded four different terms of settlement.
The four different terms of settlement were adopted by the court as consent judgments and orders were made accordingly on the following dates: 20th August 2013, 20th August 2013 and 30th August 2013 respectively.
The appellant’s terms of settlement, filed in court on the 20th of August 2013, was adopted as the judgment of the court on the 23rd of August 2013. Throughout the settlement as well as the court proceedings that followed, the plaintiff was represented by his mother and next friend Margaret Atiso, and a lawyer.
Following the entry of judgment, the appellant per his next friend commenced an action at the High Court seeking inter alia an order setting aside the consent orders dated 20th August 2013, 20th August, 2013, 23rd August 2013 and 30th August 2013. The 1st& 2nd defendants/respondents filed a joint defence in which they joined issue with the plaintiff on his pleading.
The 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th entered conditional appearance to the writ of summons.
The 3rd and 4th defendants were served out of the jurisdiction.
The 3rd defendant also entered conditional appearance and followed up with an application