JOHN OFFEI ARMAH v. MRS. EVELYN BOYE & OTHERS
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KUSI-APPIAH, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- OWUSU (M/S), J.A.
- KORBIEH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Evidence Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court, Fast Track Division, Accra, delivered a judgment favoring the plaintiff regarding the will of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye, which the plaintiff sought to validate and admit to probate as the sole executor. The defendants, comprising the alleged surviving spouse and customary successors, challenged the will's validity on grounds including the testator’s deteriorated health, undue influence, forgery, and non-compliance with the Wills Act, 1971. The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the will was duly executed according to the law. The defendants' subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which upheld the High Court’s findings. The Court of Appeal evaluated the requirements for a valid will—legal and testamentary capacity, testamentary intent, and formalities—and concluded that the defendants failed to prove that the testator lacked testamentary capacity or that the will was executed under duress or undue influence.
KUSI-APPIAH, J.A.: This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Fast Track Division, Accra by which that court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
The case concerns the estate of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye. The said Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye is alleged to have died testate on 24th September, 2002 and the action was for the following reliefs:-
“(1) A declaration that the Will of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye dated July, 2002 was duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act of 1971 (Act 360) and must be pronounced valid.
(2) An order that the said Will of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye dated 26th July, 2002 be admitted to probate.”
The plaintiff is the sole executor of the Will of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye. The 1st defendant claims to be the lawful surviving spouse of the testator whilst the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants also describe themselves as principal members and customary successors of the testator. They (the defendants) therefore claim to have vested interest in the estate of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye.
The defendants in their defence challenged the validity of the Will on several grounds. First, they averred that the testator was at the time material to this action in such a deteriorated state of health that he could not possibly have been in a state of mind to have given instructions to a lawyer for the making of a Will or to execute a Will as alleged by the plaintiff. In effect, the defendants contended that at the time of the execution of the Will, the testator did not know and approve the contents thereof. That the signature on the Will was a forgery, that the Will was obtained by undue influence of some person on account of the unusually large portion of the estate of the testator given to them. The defendants concluded that the Will was not duly executed in accordance with the Wills Act, Supra.
The defendants therefore counterclaimed for;-
“(a) A pronouncement of the court against the Will and
(b) A pronouncement that the 1st defendant in her capacity as the surviving spouse and the other defendants as next-of-kin of the deceased are entitled to be granted Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased.”
The trial court took evidence and held that “the Will of the late Dr. Emmanuel Mama Boye dated 26th July 2002 was executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act360) and ordered that it be admitted to probate.”
The defendants who were dissatisfied with