2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns the validity of the will of Joseph Nii Narh Ashong, contested on grounds of alleged forgery. The trial High Court upheld the will's validity, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellants challenged the decisions on two grounds, but the Supreme Court found no merit in their arguments. The Supreme Court held that the propounder fulfilled the necessary formalities as per the Wills Act, 1971, and the decision was supported by the expert testimony. Therefore, the will remains valid, and the appeal was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
ANSAH JSC:-
Introduction and background:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the trial High Court. One Joseph Nii Narh Ashong whose estate is the subject of controversy between the parties herein died on the 27th day of July, 1989. A widow and nineteen children survived him. The deceased was purported to have made a will dated 14 April 1985 and thereafter, a purported codicil executed on 15 July 1989. In the said will and codicil, two executors were appointed by the testator, namely Elisha Adjetey and Victor Albert Otoo. They applied for Probate but before it was granted, Elisha Adjetey died and Albert Otoo renounced probate. The estate thus remaining unadministered for a while, it became necessary for the first applicant, Mary Quarcoo, a surviving widow of the testator and a beneficiary under the Will as well as the head of family of the deceased to jointly apply for Letters of Administrations with will and codicil annexed, to administer the estate.
The Caveat
Mrs. Victoria Welbeck and Agnes Ashong caveated against the grant for the reason as alleged by the caveatrixes that the said will and the codicil read on 11 September 1998 was a forgery and therefore not a true and original last will of the deceased for the signature as it appears on the purported will is not similar to any of the deceased’s specimen signatures.
Consequently, the parties joined issues on ‘whether or not the purported Will of the said Joseph Nii Narh Ashong dated the 14th of April 1985 and the codicil dated 15th July 1989, were procured by the proponent by fraud and consequently null and void’. The validity of the alleged will was thus put in issue. The alleged will was tendered in evidence as Exhibit M. The trial judge having reminded himself that the case concerned a deceased person therefore it must be looked at with great care, proceeded to critically analyze or evaluate fully the evidence on record including the oral evidence by the witness to the said will and codicil as well as the expert evidence of the court witness, and eventually gave judgment for proponents. The caveatrice’s appeal was dismissed in totality and she has hence, appealed to this court.
The Appeal to the Supreme Court:
There are two Grounds of Appeal before this court, namely;
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal erred in law when they declared the Last Will of Joseph Nii Narh Ashong valid.
The judgment was against the weig