DR. JOHN R. KELLS JOSEPH K WHAJAH v. DR. EBENEZER A. ADJEI
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- LAMPTEY, J.A
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Evidence Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
1999
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Court of Appeal case, the court evaluated whether a 1989 will purportedly made by Dr. John Ackah Blay Miezah was valid. The defendants challenged its validity, claiming the will was a forgery and that the trial court went beyond its jurisdiction by moving to London to gather evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the 1989 will was valid but set aside related orders pertaining to other testamentary documents. The case touched on issues such as the standard of proof for forgery, the jurisdiction of courts, the procedural handling of testamentary documents, and witness credibility.
JUDGMENT
LAMPTEY, J.A.:
The suit now on appeal before this court was commenced pursuant to an order made by Mrs. Akoto-Bamfo, J. (as she then was) dated 23rd February, 1993. That order reads as follows:—
“Plaintiffs as executors of the 1989 Will do issue a writ of summons within 14 days asking the court to pronounce on the validity of the said Will”.
In due course, John Kells 1st plaintiff and Joseph Kwesi Whajah 2nd plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) sued Dr. Ebenezer Ako Adjei, 1st defendant and Francis Kaku Mensah 2nd defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in the High Court, Accra. The plaintiffs claimed the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the said 1989 Will was a forged document; as well as other serious allegations. They counter-claimed for the reliefs spelt out in the statement of defence and counter-claim. In due course, two other persons, Rexona Kim Blay Miezah and Francis Kolorah Blay Miezah applied to the court to be joined as parties. They were on the orders of the trial court joined as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively. Pursuant to the order joining them, Solicitors acting for them filed their statement of defence. Pleadings closed and the case proceeded to trial. Hearing commenced on the 12th of June, 1995. The parties and their witnesses were heard by the trial court. On 20th May, 1997 the trial judge read her judgment in the case. By that judgment she declared “(1) that the 1989 Will of the late Dr. Blay Miezah was valid; (2) that the 1988 Will of the late Dr. Blay Miezah was not valid; (3) that exhibit "13" was valid, adding that exhibit 13 can stand on its own; (4) that Dr. Blay Miezah did not intend Exhibit “16” to be a testamentary document or a Will".
The 1st and 2nd defendants were aggrieved by the judgment and appealed to this Court on a number of grounds of appeal. Notice of additional grounds of appeal were subsequently filed by lawyers for the defendants without leave of this court. Pursuant to the rules of court that is, C.I. 19 lawyers acting for the parties to this appeal filed their respective statements of case.
I must begin this judgment by identifying and pointing out the real issue which the trial judge was called upon to make a decision. The summons for direction was argued out fully by lawyers for the parties. The trial judge in a written ruling dated 18th May, 1995 set down the following issue for tri