NII OFORI KWATCHEY & ORS VS ISAAC ARYEE ANKRAH & ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP DENNIS ADJEI, J. A,
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Property and Real Estate Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around the validity of the will of Beatrice Manu Kwatchey. The court addressed several key issues, including whether the testatrix was blind when making the will, if there was undue influence, and if a portion of land was gifted to the 3rd Plaintiff. The court found that the testatrix was not blind when making the will and that it was voluntarily executed in accordance with the Wills Act. While the will was deemed valid, the court ruled that it could not dispossess the 3rd Plaintiff of a building she developed on the property with the testatrix's permission. The case highlights important principles in probate law, including the burden of proof for will validity, the standard for proving forgery in will contests, and the distinction between permission to develop land and gifting of land under customary law.
ADJEI, JA:
The Plaintiffs took out this action against the defendants claiming for the following: “i. Declaration that the purported will of the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey (Deceased) dated 27th May, 1997 is invalid.
An order for the revocation of the probate granted the 1st and 2nd Defendants on 9th March, 2006. iii.
An order for delivery and cancelation of any vesting assent executed in favour of the 3rd Defendant pursuant to the purported Will.
Declaration that the one storey-building on the compound of the deceased’s house No. B 833, Russia Accra is owned by the 3rd defendant.
v. Any other reliefs that the Court may deem fit v. Costs”. The Defendants resisted the Plaintiffs claim and counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs for the following reliefs: “1. A declaration that title of the House No. B833 Russia-Accra and all the abutting land including the story building on the land put up arbitrarily by 3rd Plaintiff is vested in 3rd defendant by virtue of the devise made in the Will of the deceased.
2. An order for recovery of possession of the storey building and any room in the deceased’s house occupied by the 3rd defendant.
3. General damages against the 3rd Plaintiff for trespass.
4. Perpetual injunction to restrain 3rd Plaintiff, her agents etc.
from insulting and casting insinuations onto 3rd defendant which disturbs her quiet enjoyment and stay in her legal estate or property”. The brief facts of the Plaintiffs’ case were that the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey died on the 11th June, 2005. The Plaintiffs sued in their capacities as head of family, eldest son and a daughter respectively of the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey.
The 1st and 2nd Defendants were sued as the executors of the alleged last Will of the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey.
The 3rd Defendant who was one of the daughters of the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey and the sole beneficiary of the alleged Will was also sued as the sole beneficiary of the Will.
The Defendants on the other hand are alleging that the Will of the late Beatrice Manu Kwatchey was the voluntary act of the deceased and should be pronounced as valid by the Court.
At the close of pleadings ten issues were set down to regulate the conduct of the trial.
They are as follows: “a. Whether or not the Testator was blind at the time she made the purported Will.
b. Whether or not the Testator knew about the existence of the purported Will or approved of its contents.
c. Whether or not the Testator was unduly influenced to