BEATRICE A. QUAYNOR & TWO OTHERS vs. W. A. HUMPHREY-BONSU & ONE ANOR.

The deceased, William BartPlange, died leaving a will which appointed the defendants/appellants (his children) as executors and beneficiaries. The plaintiffs/respondents included the 1st plaintiff whose marital status to the deceased was disputed, and two children not provided for in the will: the 2nd plaintiff, a student at the time of death, and the 3rd plaintiff, a mentally and physically disabled child. The plaintiffs sought provision under section 131 of the Wills Act for maintenance, alleging the will made no reasonable provision for them. The defendants denied the 1st plaintiff was a lawful wife and contended the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were not dependants under the Act due to age. The trial court found the 1st plaintiff was lawfully married by custom, the devises to the 2nd defendant were void due to attesting witness status, and that the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were dependants entitled to provision. The court ordered maintenance and costs in favor of the plaintiffs.

BENIN, JA. The late William Bart-Plange (hereinafter called the deceased) who died in 21:3:87 left behind a will, probate of which was taken in May, 1987 by the defendants/appellants herein, who are among the children left by the deceased. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs/respondent are also children of the deceased. But it is in dispute whether the 1st plaintiff/respondents was ever married to the deceased, and if so whether she was a wife of the deceased at the time of his death. The 2nd plaintiff who was not catered for by the deceased in his will was a student at the time of his father’s death. The 3rd plaintiff, a cripple and mentally retarded child from birth, was also not catered for, not to mention the 1st plaintiff. Hence this action by the plaintiffs whereby they sought an order to make provision under the Will of the ……deceased for the plaintiffs……. for whom the deceased testator made no provision.” Besides this relief, the plaintiffs also averred that the devises ...