JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.
The plaintiff, as one of the principal members of the Asamoah Adu Anona family of Mumford, is claiming on behalf of the family an order setting aside the will of one Samuel Kobina Crentsil alias Kobina Enyinda as null and void. Two grounds are alleged for seeking this order, namely that the testator was non-compos mentis when he made the said will; and secondly, that there is no declaration on the will to the effect that it had been read over and interpreted to the said testator before he signed as required by the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360); he being illiterate. It must be said that the plaintiff is the nephew of the deceased and a possible successor if the deceased had died intestate. The first defendant is the sole beneficiary under the will and the second defendant, his wife, an executor and an attesting witness.
According to the plaintiff there are several units in the family and that the deceased was the head of his unit; that one unit cannot inherit the properties of another unit. The plaintiff admitted he did not consult the head of the wider family, one Ebusuapanyin Kwame Yaw, for he is very inactive in respect of the case since he did not lose anything by the will of the deceased. In this regard, therefore, he consulted only his mother who is the sister of the deceased and head of their unit. The mother said [p.25] she was an illiterate so she did not know what the whole thing was about. The plaintiff also gave evidence as to the ill-health of the testator and the many efforts made to treat him; and that on the day the will was said to have been executed, the testator was non-compos mentis and was at Abeadze Dominase receiving local treatment for his mental sickness. As such his uncle could not have travelled to Winneba to execute the will since all the attesting witnesses live in Winneba.
The plaintiff called his mother who also testified that her younger brother, the deceased, had been mentally sick for about one year before his death. This witness confirms that the plaintiff did consult her about the court action he intended to take but she advised that he should forget the matter and leave it. Now that the matter was in court she had come to withdraw it for amicable settlement at home. She however did say that the plaintiff had the authority to bring the action.
In respect of this witness I must say she is very, very old, and one had the clear impression that she was sorry the matter had had to reach the courts as a
