Kanyoke J. The applicant is one of the widows of the late Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu of Kumasi who died intestate on or about 25 May 1996. The late Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu was survived by 31 children, four of whom are with the applicant herein. No letters of administration have since been taken in respect of the estate of the late Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu.
However, despite this, the applicant alleged that sometime after the death of the late Akwasi Agyeuang Bonsu, the respondents who are two brothers and a sister of the late Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu, met and distributed the estate of her deceased husband and shared those properties forming the estate amongst themselves contrary to the provisions of the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL III). When this came to the knowledge of the applicant, she caused her solicitor to write to the first respondent, the then head of the late Agyemang Bonsu's family, warning him of the consequences of their action and advising the first respondent and the other respondents herein to first apply for letters of administration in respect of the estate of the late Mr Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu. The first respondent also caused his solicitor to reply to the applicant's letter. In this reply, the first respondent rather confirmed the distribution or sharing of the late Agyemang Bonsu's estate. Attached to the first respondent's letter were three annexures showing how the estate of the late Agyemang Bonsu was distributed.
Dissatisfied with this turn of events, the applicant per her solicitor filed a motion on notice on 15 January 1997B for an order that the respondents should be punished by a fine or imprisonment for intermeddling with the estate of her late husband, Mr Akwasi Agyemang Bonsu in accordance with Order 1, r 3 of the Probate and Administration Rules, 1995 (LI 1515). For reasons not clear to me, this motion could not be heard for almost two years until it was argued before me on 2 November 1999. But very unfortunately, the first respondent had by then passed to the next world; the motion therefore abated against him by the rules of court.
In moving the motion, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the supporting affidavit filed on 3 February 1997 and two other supplementary supporting affidavits filed by the applicant on 3 February 1997 and on 28 July 99 respectively. The supplementary affidavit filed on 3 February 1997 was in reaction to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent on 3 January 1997, wh
