IN RE APPIAGYEI-DANKA (DECD.); APPIAGYEI-DANKA vs. APPIAGYEI-DANKA AND ANOTHER [1974]DLCA2285

Date	1974-10-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLCA2285

APALOO JA

ANNAN JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

L. B. AKAINYAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

TOTOE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLCA2285
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">IN RE APPIAGYEI-DANKA (DECD.); APPIAGYEI-DANKA<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">APPIAGYEI-DANKA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1974] 2 GLR 283<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
15 OCTOBER 1974.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

L. B.
AKAINYAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO, ANNAN AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
question raised in this appeal, is within a very narrow compass. It is this:
Does the sum of ¢5,000 which the Kumasi University of Science and Technology
hold in respect of superannuation benefits for the account of the late Dr.
Appiagyei-Danka enure for the benefit of his estate or is the appellant solely
beneficially entitled to it? The deceased died intestate and did not make a
gift inter vivos of this sum to the appellant. If she claims herself entitled
to that sum, she must show by what title she came by it. The appellant founds
herself squarely on section 14 of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the
facts. The appellant is the mother of the intestate. He was in his lifetime
employed by the Kumasi University of Science and Technology as a lecturer in
agricultural chemistry. At the date of his death on 11 June 1972, he had risen
to the post of senior lecturer. At the time of his employment, he was requested
to join and did join the university superannuation scheme. He also, at the
request of the university, filled a form which provided information about
himself of a personal nature. That form was headed: “Particulars of Next-of-kin
of College Employees and other relevant information (For file use).” It is to
be noted that there is nothing on this form which relates it to the
superannuation scheme. In the column “Name of next-of-kin” the deceased wrote:
“Madam Beatrix Appiagyei.” This is admittedly the name of the appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
present dispute arose because the appellant claimed that she was duly nominated
by the deceased as the beneficiary of the sums due in the superannuation scheme
and that by reason of section 14 of the Wills Act, 1971, that sum does not form
part of the general estate of the deceased, but belongs to herself beneficially
. The intestate’s wife took issue with the appellant on this. She claimed that
there was no nomination within the meaning of section 14 of the Wills Act and
that that sum formed part of the general estate of the deceased. That
contention found favour with the learned trial judge, Koranteng-Addow J. who
(in [1973] 2 G.L.R. 188 at p.190) concluded that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“the very
fact of a person’s name appearing in this type of nomination paper did not
constitute him the beneficiary under the superannuation scheme. The sole aim is
to assist the university authorities in tracing the members of family of a
deceased participant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
this conclusion that the appellant contests by this appeal. It was urged on her
behalf that the learned judge “erred in holding that the superannuation forms
part of the general estate of the deceased.” This according to counsel, is
because the deceased had made a valid nomination of the appellant as his
beneficiary under the scheme. Counsel referred to section 14 of the Wills Act,
1971, and submitted that inasmuch as the university took out a policy of
insurance on the life of the deceased and the latter, in his lifetime,
nominated the appellant who is a member of his family within the meaning of
subsection (9) of section 14 of Act 360, she was entitled to the sum assured
and that the judge should have so held. The issues thus raised for
determination are two, namely, one of law and one of fact. The issue of law may
be formulated in this way: Can a participant of the university superannuation
scheme make a valid nomination of a beneficiary within the meaning of section
14 of the Wills Act, 1971? And the factual question is: Did the deceased make
any</main>