RITA JONES v. EMELIA BENTIL
October 28, 2011
HIGH COURT
CORAM
- S.K.A. ASIEDU, J. SITTING AS JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA
Areas of Law
- Probate and Succession
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
October 28, 2011
HIGH COURT
CORAM
Try asking the following...
By a writ of summons issued on the 29th October, 2004 the plaintiff claims against the defendant:
1. ‘A declaration that upon the death intestate of Edward Kwabena Kwaisi Bentil on 1st April 2002 his estate must be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Law 1985 (PNDC 111)
2. A further declaration that the plaintiff, being the surviving daughter of the intestate, Edward Kwabena Kwaisi Bentil , has a share in her father’s estate in accordance with the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111)
3. An order that the estate should be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Law ,1985 (PNDCL 111)
4. A further declaration that any disposition and distribution of the estate aforementioned by the defendant is null and void and of no legal consequence.
5. An order for accounts for her unlawful and unilateral dealings in the estate.
6. Any further order(s) as the justice case demands.
7. Costs including solicitor’s professional fees’.
After the service on the defendant of the writ together with its accompanying statement of claim, an appearance was caused to be entered after which the defendant filed a statement of defence in which she also counterclaimed against the plaintiff:
(a) ‘An order that the plaintiff returns to the matrimonial home situate at East Legon the following:
(i) Dodge Van with registration number GR 8892 R
(ii) shot gun
(iii) Television set
(iv) Video Deck
(v) Plastic tables and chairs
(vi) Pressing iron
(vii) Telephone
(viii) Deceased’s mobile phone (Motorola Model)
(ix) Electric kettle
(x) Various Iace fabrics of decease
(b) An order compelling the Plaintiff to refund to the
Defendant the cost of the front entrance door leading to the matrimonial home.
(c) An order compelling the Plaintiff to refund to the
Defendant all utility bills, cost of repairing the air conditioning unit destroyed as a result of the Plaintiff leaving the said unit on and locking up the said room over a period of time.
(d) An order compelling the plaintiff to refund to the
Defendant ¼ of all debts of the deceased paid by the Defendant for and on behalf of the estate.
(e) Any further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit.
(f) Costs’
After the filing of a Reply, the following issues set out in the application for directions were adopted for trial by the court. These are:
i. ‘Whether or not the Plaintiff is the eldest child of the intestate and a beneficiary of his estate.
ii. Whether or not
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, the eldest daughter of the late Edward Kwabena Kwaisi Bentil, sued the defendant, Bentil’s surviving spouse, in the High Court seeking declarations that the intestate estate be distributed under PNDCL 111, recognition of her share, accounts, and invalidation of any unilateral distribution. The defendant counterclaimed for the return of household items and a vehicle, reimbursement of a front door, utilities and repairs, and contribution to debts. The court found Bentil died intestate, that both women were granted Letters of Administration, and that the estate carried substantial debts to entities such as Unique Trust Financial Services, Global Hiring Association, BRG Ghana Limited, Buildaf Company Limited and Akwapo Electricals. Applying the Evidence Act, the court held the plaintiff’s criminal allegations of forgery and embezzlement were unproved beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant’s civil allegations of removal and damage were unproved on the balance of probabilities. It refused to nullify the defendant’s dealings, ordered her to render accounts within 30 days, denied her request for a quarter contribution to debts, and directed that each party bear her own costs.