JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON J.
The plaintiff on 14 June 1982 issued his writ claiming to be a lawful son and the person entitled to the estate of James Tetteh Odonkor (deceased) and as such to have a grant of administration of the estate of the deceased and to have the letters of administration wrongfully granted to the defendants on 31 March 1982, revoked or declared null and void.
The plaintiff then pleaded in his statement of claim that in or about 1978, the defendants applied for letters of administration in respect of the estate of late James Tetteh Odonkor, that the plaintiff filed a caveat against the said application; that on 28 July 1980 the High Court ordered that in the event of a disagreement as to who was entitled to a grant of letters of administration the defendants were to issue a writ to determine who was entitled to be granted the said [p.59] letters of administration. He then proceeded in paragraph 3 to state as follows:
"3. Far from issuing the writ in terms of that solemn High Court order the defendants surreptitiously managed to deceive the registry of this honourable court to issue them with letters of administration in respect of the estate of the late James Tetteh Odonkor.
4. The plaintiff says that the defendants were fully aware of the High Court's order and could only obtain the letters of administration fraudulently.
5. The plaintiff says that the letters of administration presently in the hands of the defendants were irregularly and wrongfully issued and the same is null and void for all purposes."
It is clear from the statement of claim , paragraphs 2 to 4, that the plaintiff is pleading fraud on the part of the defendants. But the allegations are in such general and vague terms that it is not clear to me what the plaintiff is saying the defendants have done.
In Wallingford v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 App.Cas. 685, Lord Selborne L.C. had this to say concerning imputations of fraud at p. 697:
". . . if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice... No single material fact is condescended upon, in a manner which would enable any Court to understand what it was that was alleged to be fraudulent. These allegations, I think, must be entirely disregarded..."
The rule with regard to the pleading of fraud is that: "The acts alleged to
