IN RE AMARTEIFIO (DECD.); AMARTEIFIO v. AMARTEIFIO
February 10, 1981
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- STRIGGNER-SCOTT J
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Property and Real Estate Law
February 10, 1981
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns the interpretation of Clause 6 of the will of Bob Amarteifio, who died in 1954 leaving seven children by two wives. The plaintiff, his eldest son and executor, sought an originating summons to clarify whether their mothers entitlement under Clause 6 was a fixed a320 or a percentage of rent from a building (602/RL 3) leased to U.A.C. The defendants contended it was twenty percent, given rent at death was a3100 and had appreciated significantly. Striggner-Scott J. reasoned that a literal reading would defeat the testators intention, particularly in light of rent appreciation and the absence of a residuary clause, and applied interpretive principles from Gray v. Pearson and Hawkins & Ryder. The court held that Rosinas successors are entitled to twenty percent of annual rents; the application was granted and costs awarded to the defendants.
JUDGMENT OF STRIGGNER-SCOTT J.
In his lifetime Bob Amarteifio (deceased) had seven children, it would appear by two different wives, the plaintiff being the son of the one wife, and the defendants the children of another wife called Rosina Amarteifio (also deceased). In his will dated July 1947, and admitted to probate in 1954, the year of his death, Bob Amarteifio appointed the plaintiff, his eldest son, an executor under the will, and all his children beneficiaries under the said will. One of the assets forming part of his estate was a building designated as 602/RL 3.
At the time of his death, the testator, Bob Amarteifio, had leased the said building to U.A.C. By clause 6 of his will, he directed that the balance of rents accruing from his property annually should be distributed equally between the devisees under his will—that is his children — but not until his wife Rosina Amarteifio, the defendants' mother had been paid 20 pounds of such rents annually. It is the plaintiff's case that clause 6 has been misinterpreted by the defendants to mean that since the rent at the date of the will was 100 pounds per annum, Rosina Amarteifio whose share of the rents now passes to the defendants since her demise, must be entitled to twenty per cent of rents accruing at all times from the property. The plaintiff therefore comes by an originating summons seeking that the court gives clause 6 its true and meaningful interpretation.
At the time and point in the proceedings when the court heard legal arguments put forward by counsel, it would appear the other issues filed for the court's determination had been discontinued or dealt with by the court at previous sittings and before another judge, leaving clause 6 as the only issue for the court's determination.
In the words of the testator, Bob Amarteifio, clause 6 of his will reads:
". . . I direct that my devisees shall distribute or divide the rents accruing therefrom annually, and that in such distribution my wife Rosina Mansah Amarteifio shall be paid twenty pounds (20 pounds) of such annual rent and the balance to be distributed equally between the other devisees."
The strict interpretation the plaintiff chooses to put on the wording of the clause is that his father must have intended Mrs. Amarteifio to receive 20 pounds only of the accruing rents at all times. His counsel argues that the will was prepared by no other than the eminent lawyer Adumua-Bossman who later became an equally eminent judge, that if th