MONICA ASIEDUA v. STEPHEN OFORI DARKO & ANOTHER

MENSAH-HOMIAH, (J. A.):

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Nkawkaw, dated 24th June, 2019, wherein the Plaintiff’s action was dismissed for want of capacity. By her Writ of Summons issued on 21st January, 2019 the Plaintiff claimed for an order for:

1. Defendants to render full accounts of all proceeds received from the Sawmill since the death of her husband on 8th August, 2017.

2. Compel the 1st Defendant from taking some of the proceeds from the Sawmill with the claim that the Sawmill belongs to his father and therefore he can take money from the Sawmill.

3. Compel the Defendants to pay all outstanding school fees for her husband’s children.

4. Compel defendants to accept the set-up of a management team to manage the Sawmill and render accounts to the family

5. Cost.

BACKGROUND

Eric Ofori died intestate on 8th August, 2017, he was survived by two spouses and two sets of children by both spouses. The Plaintiff is the 2nd surviving spouse and the 1st Defendant is the eldest son of the 1st surviving spouse. The 2nd Defendant is an employee of a wood processing business popularly known as a Sawmill which forms part of the estate of the deceased. After the grant of Letters of Administration to the 1st Defendant who is also a beneficiary, the Plaintiff caveated, and having been warned, the 1st Defendant brought an application for Letters of Administration on notice to the Plaintiff. After going through the motion, the High Court, Nkawkaw, joined the Plaintiff as a co-administratrix to administer the estate on 5th July, 2018. Consequently, the joint Administrators distributed the estate with the exception of the Sawmill. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendants have taken control over the Sawmill and are keeping all the proceeds from the business. They have also refused to render accounts to the family of the deceased. Hitherto, all school fees of the children of the deceased were paid from the proceeds from the Sawmill and it is contended by the Plaintiff that the Defendants’ actions have created a disturbing situation for the family of the deceased. The 1st Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and challenged the capacity of the Plaintiff to institute the action. On 25th March, 2019, the 1st Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit for want of Capacity under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. After hearing the motion, the trial judge in a ruling dated 24th June, 2019 found that the Plaint