GUY NEE WHANG & KROWE MENSAH v. VANDERPUYE MANISON
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS.), JSC (PRESIDING)
- ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
- BENIN JSC
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Evidence Law
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal concerning the validity of Joseph Borketey Manisons will, which had been contested due to allegations of forgery and the testators lack of testamentary capacity. The trial court had found in favor of the contesting son, relying on witness testimonies and expert evidence that suggested the will was forged and the testator was suffering from dementia. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision, finding the will invalid due to the testator's lack of capacity and discrepancies in signatures. The principles highlighted included the burden of proof in proving a will, comparative analysis for signatures, and the primacy of the trial judge's evaluation of witness testimony.
ADINYIRA JSC:
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents (Plaintiffs) are the executors of the will of the late Joseph Borketey Manison (testator) who died on 21 January 2006. It was thought that he died intestate, and his estate was shared. Then by a letter dated the 9 July 2009, the Chief Registrar of the High Court, Accra invited members of his family to the registry of the Court for the reading of a will purported to be the last will and testament of the testator.
This will was tendered in evidence as Exhibit A. In his will, the testator devised almost the whole of his estate to Enoch Bortey Manison son of Madam Beatrice Ankrah. The other children including Defendant were given “other houses” which, as it turned out did not exist.
The Defendant/Respondent/Appellant (Defendant), who is one of the testator’s sons, challenged the validity of the said will on the grounds that the will was forged as the signature on the will was not that of his late father. He also contended that as at 16 May 2001 when the testator was alleged to have executed the said last will and testament the testator had no testamentary capacity. On these grounds Defendant filed a notice calling upon the executors of the will to prove the will in solemn form.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs issued a writ on 23 July 2007 to have the will pronounced valid. In their suit, the Plaintiffs claimed against the Defendant a declaration that the will dated 16 May 2001 was the true will and last testament of the testator and an order that the said will, be admitted to probate.
The issues for determination before the High Court were whether the will was properly executed by the testator and attested to by witnesses and whether the testator was compos mentis at the time he executed the will. The trial judge resolved all these issues in favor of the defendant.
The trial judge relied heavily on the evidence of PW3 the surviving attesting witness whose evidence was that the will was not the act of the testator as his signature and that of the testator on the will were forgeries. The trial judge compared the signatures of the testator on some exhibits with that on the will and found the signatures on all the exhibits were the same except that on the will which was different. The trial Judge also relied on the evidence of DWI, Dr Jacob Jordan Lamptey, the psychiatrist who treated the testator for dementia to come to the conclusion that Exhibit A, the will was a forgery.
At page 24 of th