MR. SENTI MICHEAL v. REV. FATHER MON KWAME & DR. ASOMAH
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARGARET WELBOURNE (MRS.)
- K. N. ADUAMA OSEI
- SENYO DZAMEFE
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court reviewed an appeal against the High Court's decision that invalidated the will of the deceased, Thomas Nana Asante alias Nana Senti, on grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The Court held that the trial judge did not contradict himself and upheld the findings of undue influence and the testator's lack of testamentary capacity. Errors or misdescriptions in property details do not invalidate a will. It was also determined that the testator was not legally obliged to disclose any will-related decisions to others. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
JUDGMENT
WELBOURNE JA
This is an appeal by the Defendants/Appellants (hereinafter called the Appellants) against the judgment of the High Court dated 21st July, 2015 in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent).
The facts:
The Respondent is the eldest son of the late Thomas Nana Asante aka Nana Senti, the Tufuhene of Techimantia who died on 25th February, 2013.
Upon the death of Nana Senti, a document purported or alleged to be the last Will of the deceased dated 27th August, 2012, was submitted to the High Court, Sunyani for Probate by the Appellants who were named in the alleged Will as the Executors. The Respondent filed a caveat against the grant of the Probate. Another Caveat was filed by one Madam AkuaAfriyie, a sister of the deceased.
Eventually, the Respondent filed a writ against the Appellants (Executors) claiming the following reliefs:
A declaration that the purported Will of the late Thomas Senti alias Nana SentiTufuhene of Techimantia is invalid.
Further orders.
The Appellants disputed the Respondents’ claim and after the trial, the judge upheld the Respondents’ claim and set aside the Will as invalid. The Appellants dissatisfied with the judgment mounted this appeal on the following grounds:
The judgment was against weight of the evidence.
That the trial judge contradicted himself when he held that the Testator was wrongly influenced in the execution of the will after he had held that the signature on the will is not that of the Testator and which said contradiction has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
That the finding by the trial judge that the Testator lacked testamentary capacity is erroneous and not backed by the evidence on record.
That the trial judge’s conclusion that the Testator would have informed 2ndDefendant (Dr. Asomah) if indeed he executed the will is erroneous and lacks any legal basis.
That the trial judge failed to consider properly the totality of the evidence and wrongly gave judgment against the Defendants/Appellants.
No additional grounds were filed as at the time of the appeal.
Consideration
The Appellant’s counsel argued ground B of the appeal which reads as follows:
“b. That the trial judge contradicted himself when he held that the Testatorwas wrongly influenced (SIC) in the execution of the Will after he had held that the signature on the Will is not that of the Testator and which said contradiction has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice”