JUDGEMENT
In this suit the extent and application of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and section 13(1) of the Wills Act, 1971, Act 360 have been invoked and comes up for fascinating discussions.
Plaintiff who claim to be a widow and upon the death of her husband of sixteen years, Lawrence Arthur Anthony, all her personal belongings had to be thrown out of her matrimonial home by the Defendant who was an ex-wife of the deceased husband together with the children of the Defendant, birthed this writ out of the Registry of the court, upon realizing that the Will of the late husband, whiles making the Defendant as the Executor/Trustee of the Will, did not make any provision at all, let alone a reasonable one for her, and accordingly sought the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the late Lawrence Arthur Anthony (deceased).
ii. A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable provision from the estate of the deceased in accordance with section 13(1) of the Wills Act, (Act 360) of 1971 and article 22(1) of the 1992 Constitution by reason of being a surviving spouse.
iii. An order directed at the Defendant to give to the Plaintiff out of the estate of Lawrence Arthur Anthony (deceased) such reasonable provision as shall be determined by this honourable court.
iv. Costing [sic] including solicitor’s fees and any other order(s) as the honourable court may deem fit.
Defendant in her Statement of Defence admit having sighted a certificate of customary law marriage between the deceased and Plaintiff after the demise of the deceased but deny the existence of any such marriage at the time of the death of the deceased as to her all the available information including tax documentations filed in Canada between 2004 and 2014, all showed that the deceased was divorced at the time of his death.
Defendant further dispute the value of the estate as amounting to Gh¢1,255,000 as there would have to be some deductions including an amount of Gh¢300,000 with SIC Life that the deceased named his mother, Rose Leat as the beneficiary. Besides, there has been another challenge by three persons who contend that they are the children of the deceased with which DNA has proved so and may also be entitled to reasonable provisions out of the estate.
With issues joined the following were set down as the germane matters for resolution:
1. Whether or not the Plaintiff was married to the late Arthur Lawrence Anthony (decease
