IN RE ESSUMAN (DECD.); ESSUMAN AND ANOTHER v. TESCHMAKE

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.

The proceedings in this case were commenced with an application ex parte filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court, Sekondi, for conditional grant of letters of administration to them jointly in respect of the estate of Joseph Annu—Essuman, deceased, who died at Elmina on 18 June 1960. The application was granted on 22 May 1961, but on 1 June 1961, a caveat was entered by the defendant, who claimed to be the widow of the late Joseph Annu — Essuman, opposing the grant of letters of administration to the plaintiffs. On 10 November 1961, the plaintiffs filed a motion on notice praying for an order granting to them jointly letters of administration and in their affidavit accompanying the motion paper they disputed that the caveatrix, the defendant, had any interest whatsoever, either by native customary law or under English law, in the estate of the late Joseph Annu-Essuman. These proceedings were before Charles J. and were headed as follows:

“Re estate of Joseph Annu-Essuman (deceased); Anna Winifred Annu-Essuman and Kweku Essuman (applicants) Motion on notice for an order granting to them jointly letters of administration."

On 18 December 1961, Charles J. ordered the applicants to issue a writ of summons against the caveatrix for the purpose of determining the issue as to who was entitled to the grant of letters of administration.

The plaintiffs therefore issued a writ claiming against the defendant,

"a declaration that the first plaintiff, who is a surviving issue of a marriage contracted by the late J. A. Essuman under the Marriage Ordinance and the second plaintiff who is a brother [p.361] and the person validly appointed under native custom to be the successor of the said J. A. Essuman deceased, are the proper persons entitled to a grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of the said J. A, Essuman deceased in preference to the caveatrix Anna Teschmaker."

In a statement of claim filed on behalf of the plaintiffs the following averments were made:

"(2) The first plaintiff is one of the surviving issues of a marriage contracted by the said J. A. Essuman under the Marriage Ordinance in his lifetime.

(3) The second plaintiff is a brother to the deceased J. A. Essuman and the person who has been validly appointed to be the customary successor of the late J. A. Essuman.

(4) It was agreed between the head and the principal members of the family of the late J. A. Essuman acting on one hand and the survivin