JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.
The plaintiffs claim as endorsed on the writ of summons was as follows:
"The plaintiff's claim is for N¢892.38 being ex gratia gratuity awarded to the estate of the late Francis Christian Rhule which said award late Francis Christian Rhule in his life-time nominated his son, the plaintiff, as the beneficiary thereof, and which said sum the defendant has caused to be paid to him in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of late Francis Christian Rhule, and which sum the said administrator has refused to pay to the plaintiff."
Apart from this action there was also another case (i.e. civil suit No. 13/1971) pending before the court in which Mary Yeboah as the mother of the three children of the late Francis Christian Rhule was claiming against the defendant as the administrator of the estate of the said Francis Christian Rhule, the deceased father of her children, money "for support, maintenance and education" of her children especially as one of the children aged eighteen years was attending Holy Child Secondary School, and another child aged sixteen was a pupil of Catholic Jubilee School.
After a number of adjournments for the parties to try and settle out of court, the case civil suit No. 14/71 finally came before the court on 26 April 1972 when counsel for the parties indicated that an agreement had been reached for the case to be settled on the following terms:
"(1) That the sum of money standing to the credit of the deceased at Standard Bank of West Africa should go to the children of the deceased by Mary Yeboah. The amount was stated by the defendant's counsel to be ¢432.04 but the plaintiff's counsel pointed out that the true balance of account standing to the credit of the deceased was ¢751.68 and this was accepted by the defendant's counsel to be correct.
[p.43]
(2) It was also agreed that the sum of ¢892.38 being an ex gratia gratuity awarded to the estate of the deceased by the government be shared equally, fifty-fifty, between the parties."
In view of the settlement concluded before the court the following consent judgment was recorded and pronounced in open court to the hearing of both parties and their counsel: "By consent of parties all moneys in the bank should go to the children. The gratuity should be shared equally between the parties."
In my view, the settlement was fair to both parties as the defendant being the customary successor as admitted by him is bound in law to utilise the money in the es
