EDMUND BANNERMAN & ORS VS KATE PRISCILA BANNERMAN & ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELIZABETH ANKUMAH (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Property and Real Estate Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Alexander Percy Bannerman, sought to nullify the sale of his property by the 1st defendant, the only surviving child and administratrix of the estate. The court found the 1st defendant sold the property without informing all beneficiaries or obtaining court approval. Consequently, despite not being administrators, the beneficiaries had the capacity to sue to protect the property as per established legal principles. The application to set aside the writ was dismissed.
The plaintiffs on 26th of January caused to be issued a writ of summons directed at the defendants herein for the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the purported sale of Wembley House by the 1st defendant without the consent and concurrence of the beneficiary members of the Alexander Percy Bannerman family is null and void;
b. An order to set aside the sale of Wembley House to the 2nd defendant;
c. An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st defendant, her successors, assigns or anybody acting under her instructions from selling Wembley House without the prior consent and concurrence of the beneficiaries of the estate; and
d. Costs.
It is the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the grandchildren of the late Alexander Percy Bannerman who died intestate leaving behind eight children. All the children of the late Alexander Percy Bannerman are dead with the exception of the 1st defendant herein. The late Alexander Percy Bannerman during his lifetime acquired, among others, two properties located at Osu commonly known and called Wembley and Canaan houses. The 1st defendant, about 87 years old, has lived all her life in Canaan House.
According to the plaintiffs, the estate of Alexander Percy Bannerman had been managed by his customary successor in conjunction with the principal members of the family for the benefit of his children and grandchildren. For effective management of the estate, the family instituted an “Executive Committee” comprising the eldest surviving child of each of the children of Alexander Percy Bannerman and the 1st defendant. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are members of the said Executive Committee and were shocked to learn that per a notice to quit issued on the instructions of the 1st defendant to all the occupants in Wembley House, the 1st defendant had sold the said house to the 2nd defendant. She did so in her capacity as the administratrix of the estate of her late father, and without informing the Executive Committee members. The plaintiffs therefore claimed as per the endorsement.
The defendants entered Conditional Appearance through their solicitor and followed it with an “Application to Set Aside the Plaintiffs’ Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim as well as service of same on the Defendants, for want of Capacity.” Per the affidavit in support of the application, the 1st defendant disclosed her capacity as the only surviving child of the owner of the property, Alex Percy Bannerman (deceased), and also to th