IN RE KRAH (DECD); YANKYERAAH AND OTHERS v. OSEI-TUTU AND ANOTHER
1989
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADADE
- TAYOR
- FRANCOIS
- WUAKU JJSC
- ESSIEM JA
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
1989
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court appeal concerns three cocoa farms at Sukusuku in Ghana’s Western Region, devised in a 1982 will by the late Anyinasuhene and Bedenfini family head, Nana Apraku Krah, to a closely related family member (the third defendant-appellant). The plaintiffs, also members of the Bedenfini family, asserted that Sukusuku land was acquired around 1969 using family resources and that the farms were cultivated communally as family property; therefore, the testator lacked authority to devise them as personal assets. The record shows a prior 1977 will signed by Nana Apraku, contrasted with the thumbprinted 1982 will proved in probate, and evidence of his declining health. The High Court found for the plaintiffs, and the Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed. Reviewing the record, the Supreme Court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility findings and the Court of Appeal’s concurrence, applied the preponderance of probabilities standard, recognized the revocation of the 1977 will by the 1982 will, but held that the testator could not dispose of family property. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT OF WUAKU JSC
Nana Apraku Krah died testate on 4 February 1983. By his will exhibit B, executed on 22 December 1982 he devised "three separate cocoa farms situate at a place commonly known and called `Sukusuku' in the Western Region" to the testator's grandson, the third defendant-appellant herein, as the sole beneficiary. The three farms were fully described in the will, exhibit B. The deceased, Nana Apraku Krah, had in an earlier will executed on 8 January 1977 devised to his ten children his properties numbering ten. That will is tendered as [p.642] ten children his properties numbering ten. That will is tendered as exhibit A. By clause 2 (a) of exhibit A he bequeathed to his family absolutely and forever his deposit or savings account with the Ghana Commercial Bank, Berekum, and by 2 (b) he proved that
"all my other properties both immovable and movable except and excluding (a) those already herein given to my said children as above indicated and my cocoa farm situated and being at Sukusuku on Sefwi stool land which cocoa farm I have already and long ago presented to my dear wife Yaa Aworo."
The revocation clause in exhibit B, the will executed on 22 December 1982, states: "I hereby revoke all wills and testamentary dispositions heretofore made by me. "Thus by the provisions of section 9 (3) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360), exhibit A, the only will and testamentary dispositions heretofore made by the testator prior to exhibit B, was expressly and effectively revoked. Where the revocation was not expressly made it will not amount to sufficient revocation. Thus in Simpson v Foxon [1907] P 54 where the revocation clause stated, "This is the last and only Will of me", contained in a will made by the testator in 1903,it was held that statement was not sufficient to preclude the admission to probate of a will executed in 1898.
Nana Apraku Krah was one time the chief of Anyinasu, krontihene of Kato, and head of the Bedenfini family of Kato. The plaintiffs and the third defendant-appellant belong to the said Bedenfini family of Kato. The plaintiffs' case as I see it is very simple. It is this: "when Nana Apraku Krah became the krontihene and head of the Bedenfini family of Kato, the family properties which were all then yielding income were handed over to him. Nana Apraku Krah asked whether there was any money attached to the properties, the first plaintiff said that there was an amount of ¢8,000, but when he handed over that money to Nana A