MARY OKAILEY WELBECK v. SIMON TACKIE WELBECK
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS.), JSC (PRESIDING)
- GBADEGBE JSC
- AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Equity and Trusts
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant challenged the validity of their deceased father's will, alleging it was either forged or obtained by fraud. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court also rejected the appellant's claims, finding no basis to disturb the findings of the lower courts. Key legal principles include the burden of proof in establishing the validity of a will and the procedural requirements for challenging probate. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to statutory remedies and procedures in probate disputes.
JUDGMENT
AKAMBA, JSC:
The plaintiff/appellant (hereafter simply referred to as ‘appellant’), and the defendant/respondent (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘respondent’) are children of the testator, Joseph Ayikai Welbeck (deceased). The appellant by an action initiated in the High Court, Accra, sought a declaration that the will of their late father, executed on 17th July 1997 was either forged or obtained by fraud. The court heard the suit and dismissed the action on 22nd June 2011. It entered judgment in favour of the respondent who is one of two named executors/trustees under the said will. The appellant invoked the appeal process only for the Court of Appeal to similarly dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the trial court in its entirety in its decision of 14th March 2013. Undeterred by the two unsuccessful bids, the appellant filed a notice of appeal on 6th May 2013 for further redress by this court.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The appellant filed the following grounds of appeal for the determination of this court, namely:
(a) “That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.
(b) That the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the finding by the trial High Court Judge to the effect that the signature on the will is that of the testator is supported by the evidence on record.
(c) That the Court of Appeal erred when it held that whether the testator meant Nii Kasablofo II who died before the will was made or Nii Kasablofo III is not material to affect the validity of the will.
(d) That the Court of Appeal failed to give adequate consideration to the evidence of CW1, the Police Forensic Examiner, and erred in disregarding his assessment that the alleged will was forged.
(e) That the Court of Appeal failed to give any adequate consideration to the 12th December 1997 date wrongly expressed to be the date of the will on exhibit ‘9’, Probate Form 35 (affidavit of witness in proof of due execution of a will) and thus occasioned to the Appellant a miscarriage of justice.”
EVALUATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Grounds [a] and [b] were argued together by the appellant. We would include ground [e] to the list and determine the three grounds together which we proceed to do. These grounds allege that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and that the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the finding by the trial High Court Judge that the signature on the will is that of the testator is supported by the evidence on record. Also faulte