EDWARD FYNN-SACKEY v. IRENE FYNN OPOKU AND RAPHAEL FYNN-SACKEY

J U D G M E N T

ANTHONY OPPONG, JA

The plaintiff/appellant, hereafter to be referred to simply as appellant and the

defendants/respondents, hereafter to be referred to also as respondents, are children

of Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey who died intestate on the 2nd day of August 2016.

In the life time of the late Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey, he acquired House Number J81

Buade, Nungua in the name of the appellant.

The appellant contended therefore that his late father intended that property as a gift

to him; invoking the principle of presumption of advancement of that property in his

favour.

When lePers of administration in respect of the estate of their deceased father were

to be applied for, the applicants sought to list the H/No J81 as part of the inventory

of the estate of the late Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey. The appellant protested and the

dispute arising therefrom culminated in the suit the appellant instituted against the

respondents by which the appellant sought for a declaration that in acquiring H/No.

J81 Buade, Nungua in the name of appellant his late father intended it as a gift to

him and that same does not form part of the estate of the late father Emmanuel

Fynn-Sackey.

After the trial of the case the trial High Court dismissed the appellant’s case on the

basis that the presumption of advancement was effectively rebuPed on the

preponderance of the evidence.

The appellant being dissatisfied of the judgment of the trial High Court appealed to

this court on the following grounds:

1. The judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial;

2. The learned trial judge erred in concluding that the evidence on record adequately

rebu=ed the presumption of advancement;

3. The learned trial judge erred in concluding that the signature on Exhibit C2 was not

that of the plaintiff/appellant;

4. The learned trial judge erred in concluding that because Exhibit C2 was signed by the

father of the plaintiff/appellant the presumption of advancement has been rebu=ed.

By the grounds of appeal, the appellant is inviting this court to rehear the case, that

is, he is impressing upon this court that there are certain pieces of evidence on the

record which, if applied in his favour could have changed the judgment in his

favour, or there are certain pieces of evidence that have been wrongly applied

against him. The summary of the duty of this court where the appellant is alleging

that the judgment of the trial High Court is against the wei