IN RE BOSSMAN (DECD.); KUEVI vs. BOSSMAN [1977]DLHC1328

Date	1977-07-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1328

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.

NII ODOI ANNAN FOR THE APPLICANT.

KUDJAWU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLHC1328
																																						<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 BOSSMAN (DECD.); KUEVI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BOSSMAN <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 403<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 JULY 1976<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">

NII ODOI ANNAN FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case, a joint grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of
Joseph Bossman, (deceased) was made on 17 May 1973 by this court in favour of
Dr. Jonathan Emmanuel Bossman and Jacob Kwaku Bossman (since deceased); and on
16 February 1976, Nii Odoi Annan, counsel on behalf of Rev. Athanasius Foster
Okaitey Kuevi, who claimed to be the secretary of the late Joseph Bossman’s
family, filed a motion on notice for an order authorising the removal of the
co-administrator, Jacob Kwaku Bossman, who was then alive. The motion paper was
accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by Rev. Kuevi, and a written resolution
bearing the signatures of upwards of 30 principal members of the Bossman
family, to which Joseph Bossman (deceased) had belonged; and the contents of
the latter document were as follows:<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">“We the
undersigned, do hereby resolve that Dr. J. E. Bossman should be the only head
of the Bossman family forthwith and be in charge of the entire administration
of the Bossman estates. We also hereby resolve that Mr. Jacob Bossman who
administers the estates jointly with the said Dr. J. E. Bossman be released
from office as joint administrator of the Bossman estates for the following
reasons: (1) That Dr. J. E. Bossman is the only accredited and legal person
remaining and authorised by old Bossman’s (Papa Nii’s) will. (2) That Mr. Jacob
Bossman is now resident in Lome, Togo. (3) In view of the above reasons and
facts, we feel very strongly that Mr. Jacob Bossman should cease to take part
in the administration of the Bossman estates forthwith. (4) The above
resolution was adopted at a family meeting held on 28 June 1975.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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 respondent’s affidavit in
opposition, to which was exhibited a letter from the “Otubianye Bake’s family” disclosing that an amount of ¢800.00
withdrawn from the banking account of the estate to meet the cost of repairs to
the family house at Prampram had not been used for that purpose, was filed on
24 March 1976, when he was still in the land of the living; and a second
affidavit of the reverend gentleman was filed on 26 April 1976.<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">When the
motion came on for hearing on 10 May 1976, the respondent’s counsel, Mr.
Kudjawu, made this statement:<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">“I wish
to raise the following preliminary objections The application is said to have
been made under Order 60, r. 42, of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A), but it is inapplicable. The only way in which you can remove
an administrator is by bringing a substantive action. Order 60, r. 42 is only a
rule which gives the court power to give ancillary directives as to the
collection, recovery, safe-keeping, etc. of the estate; and the rule is not a
‘sword’ to remove a duly appointed administrator. This application is therefore
misconceived, and should be dismissed in limine.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Nii Odoi
Annan replied thus:<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">“Order
60, r. 42 under which we came is an omnibus order, and it is intended for the
proper administration of the estate. We have said that the respondent is
hindering the due administration of the estate, and so we want him removed.
This application is therefore proper and should be considered on its merits.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An
adjournment was then granted for the court to give its ruling. Thereafter the
court was informed that the respondent had departed this life; but both counsel
insisted on the ruling being given today.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><</main>