MARY AKYAA OSEI BOAKYE, ANDREWS SARPONG, SANDRAH AKOSUA AKYAA & CHRISTIANA AKOSUA BOATEMAA v. THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE METHODIST CONFERENCE, THE ANGLICAN BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF KUMASI, THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF KONONGO/MAMPONG, ASHANTI & EDWARD OSEI BOAKYE TRUST FUND

By an amended writ of summons the plaintiffs herein claim jointly and severally against the defendants:

‘(a) A declaration that the Last Will and Testament of the late Edward Osei Boakye dated 10th May 1997 is invalid, void and of no effect, it not having been executed in accordance and in compliance with S. 2 (3) of the Wills Act 1971 (Act 360)

(b) An order revoking and setting aside the grant of probate in respect of the above Will to the Defendants by the High Court Accra on 20th November 2006.

(c) A declaration that the estate of the late Edward Osei Boakye should fall into intestacy due to the non-compliance with S. 2 (3) of the Wills Act 1971 (Act 360)

(d) An order for accounts by the Defendants their agents, assigns, servants, or anybody from carrying out, holding themselves in any manner or form as executors or trustees or trust body of the estate of the late Edward Osei Boakye.

(f) Any other relief(s) as to the court seem meet’.

After the service of the writ and its accompanying statement of claim on the defendants an appearance was entered and later a statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a reply and thereafter the following issues set out in the application for directions were adopted for trial by the court. That is to say:

(a) ‘Whether or not the last Will and Testament of the Late Edward Osei Boakye dated 10th May 1997 was executed in compliance with section 2 (3) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360) and Wills Act, 1971(Act 360) in general;

(b) Whether or not a different Will of the late Edward Osei Boakye was admitted to probate and thus voids the probate granted,

(c) Whether or not the grant of probate is conclusive as to the due and proper execution of a Will

(d) Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the Will.

(e) Whether or not the 1st Plaintiff dealt with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants as executors, and if yes whether or not she is estopped from bringing this action;

(f) Whether or not the Will contains the signature or mark of the two attesting witnesses and

(g) Whether or not the attestation on the Will was valid’.

At the trial the 1st plaintiff gave evidence on her own behalf and on behalf of all the other plaintiffs. A representative of the defendants, that is the 1st defendant, testified for an