IN RE ARMAH (DECD.); AWOTWI vs. ABADO [1977]DLCA1326

Date	1977-06-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1326

APALOO JA

LASSEY JA

ARCHER JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A

ABBAN J.

SARPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.

ANNANCY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA1326
																																						<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" >IN RE ARMAH (DECD.); AWOTWI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABADO <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 375<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:
2 JUNE 1977<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">

SARPONG 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, LASSEY, ARCHER AND<o:p></o:p>

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.J.A. AND ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The late Jacob William Armah who died
on 7 July 1970, was a member of the Anglican Church, Cape Coast. Some time in
June 1970, he was taken ill and was admitted at the government hospital there.
His illness required surgical treatment and he was told he was going to be
operated upon. He had a premonition of his approaching end and he sought to
dispose of his earthly possessions. On 24 June 1970, when his wife and sister
visited him at the hospital, he requested to see the Archdeacon of the Anglican
Church. He was the Venerable Kofi Pare Sekyiamah.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
latter dutifully called to see his sick parishioner about noon of that day. Mr.
Armah asked whether the priest could return at 4 p.m. as he was expecting to
see his wife and sister by then. They happened to be the parties who are locked
in conflict to this case. The priest obliged and returned to see the deceased
at 4 p.m. At that time, the deceased had, besides his sister and wife, a number
of other visitors. The deceased requested Rev. Sekyiamah to excuse them for a
while. He retired into the main ward of the hospital. Mr. Armah was apparently
in a side-ward. After a while, Rev. Sekyiamah was sent for. When he returned to
the deceased’s ward, he was alone. He then told the priest, “I want you to put
into writing what I have already told my wife and sister.” The bed next to the
deceased was unoccupied and so the priest sat by the deceased who then dictated
his wishes. Rev. Sekyiamah put these down in writing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
taking them down, he read them over to the deceased who approved. The Reverend
then left the deceased and returned the next day with original and duplicate
typed copies. The deceased read his type-written wishes and made a minor
correction. He asked that the Bank of West Africa be substituted for Barclays
Bank appearing on the document.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
account of this, Rev. Sekyiamah returned and typed out two fresh copies. He
took these to the deceased the next day. The latter read them over and when he
felt satisfied that what the Reverend recorded represented his wishes, he
signed both copies. This was on 26 June 1970. Perhaps out of abundance of
caution the priest took the deceased’s thumbprints as well. After Mr. Armah
signed his wishes, the priest did the same in the former’s presence. The
deceased then gave two instructions to the<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Reverend
and these clearly reflected his state of mind. He was to keep these documents
in strict confidence and was to part with them to no one, nor inform anybody
about them. If he survived the operation, the priest was to return these
documents to him, but if he succumbed to it, he was to give one each of the
documents to his (deceased) head of family, and his wife’s (the respondent’s)
family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence is imprecise as to the exact date the deceased was operated upon. It
is clear however that he did not survive it for long. Within ten days of
declaring his last wishes, he was no more. The principal objects of Mr. Armah’s
bounty were his wife who was the plaintiff in the action (now the respondent)
and his sister the defendant. She is the applicant in this review. These
parties were in disagreement as to the true expressed wishes of the deceased
and as they were unable to compose their differences, the respondent sought the
assistance of the court. Although the deceased was compos mentis and had a full
disposable power over the properties which he sought to bequeath, his wishes,
though reduced into writing, were not attested in the manner required by
section 2 (3) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360). It was therefore</main>