IN RE LARTEY (DECEASED); LARTEY v. AFFUTU-NARTEY

JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.A.

Archer J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, sitting at Accra, refusing to grant probate of the will of the late Solomon Dorme Lartey who died on 3 August 1969 in Monrovia, Liberia. The case is a simple and straight forward one and it is unfortunate that it has had an unusually chequered career in Ghana.

The deceased was by birth a Ghanaian who later settled in Liberia and ultimately became a naturalised Liberian citizen. He married a Liberian woman and had issue with her. Before his death, he was the Bishop of the A.M.E. Zion Church in Liberia and also Episcopal Head of that church in West Africa. According to the dispositions in his will dated 28 September 1965, he left an enormous estate of landed property in Liberia and shares in companies operating in that country. He also died possessed of a plot of land on the Winneba Road, Accra, two buildings and some personal effects in Ghana—the total value of the estate in Ghana was declared as ¢14,750.00.

By his will, the deceased appointed his wife Alicia Ethel Lartey as the sole executrix. On 27 October 1969 the will was "admitted to [p.491] probate and registration" in the Monthly and Probate Court, Montserrado County, Liberia. To enable her to administer the estate in Ghana, the executrix applied to the High Court at Accra, for probate of the will. She also appointed an attorney who swore an affidavit in support of the motion and exhibited copies of the court proceedings in Liberia together with the probate granted there. In addition, the executrix filed two affidavits by the two attesting witnesses to the will to prove that both of them were present at the same time when the testator signed his will and that they also signed as witnesses in the presence of each other and in the presence of the testator. The executrix also filed the usual oath that she will faithfully administer the estate.

On 17 June 1970 counsel appeared for the executrix when the motion was heard and probate was granted. Five days later, the present respondent, who claims to be a younger brother of the deceased, filed a caveat. Of course, the caveat was of no consequence, as probate had already been granted. The respondent therefore applied to the High Court for an order to set aside the probate granted. One of the grounds stated in his affidavit was that the respondent had already been granted letters of administration by the same court to administ