EID vs. EID AND ANOTHER [1978]DLCA1140

Date	1978-07-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLCA1140

APALOO C.J

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

E. S. AIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1978]DLCA1140
																																						<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" >EID <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>EID AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 290<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:
25 JULY 1978<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">

J. C. ARMAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E. S. AIDOO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 C.J., KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND
FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>The respondents
are infants now aged eleven and nine respectively and are the children of the
late Sami Aziz Eid. The latter although in origin a Lebanese, acquired Ghanaian
citizenship by naturalisation. He died at Accra on 3 August 1969 intestate
possessed of real and personal property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
deceased’s death, his brother and wife jointly obtained letters of
administration in respect of his estate. His widow has since remarried and is
the second defendant in this matter. She is not an appellant before us. She is,
of course, the mother of the infant respondents. The deceased’s brother is the
first defendant and is the only appellant in this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
letters of administration were granted to the appellant and the deceased’s
widow on 3 June 1970. Barely six months after obtaining grant, the
administrators executed “an agreement” which gave rise to this action. It was
signed on 8 December 1970 (exhibit A). The evidence shows that the only persons
beneficially entitled in the assets of the intestate, are his infant children,
that is the respondents. It would seem the only substantial property left by
the deceased is a bakery—buildings and stock-in-trade—at Tema. It was known as
the Tema Alpha Bakery.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By this
“agreement” which was expressed to be made between the said administrators qua
administrators, the self-same persons qua trustees of the infant respondents
and the respondents as third parties, the administrators as trustees
transferred the said Alpha Bakery to a company formerly known as Semi African
Enterprises Ltd. but now known as Piccadilly Biscuits Ltd. in consideration of
shares said to be issued to the respondents by the said company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence does not disclose a great deal about the company, or who are the
brains behind it. What seems clear is that the appellant has a substantial
interest in that company. He holds the majority of the equity shares in the
company and is the chairman of its board of directors. The intestate himself
seems to have held some shares in that company but it was said he became
disenchanted with it, severed his association with the company and by himself
established the bakery business. It is unclear what the deceased did with his
shares. It would seem, however, that at the date of his death, he ceased to
have any interest in the Piccadilly Biscuits Ltd.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
plain that the intestate’s widow must have repeated the “agreement” of
transfer. Her father who brought these proceedings on behalf of his infant
grand-children, claimed that the former Mrs. Johanna Sami Eid was “pressurised”
into signing this “agreement.” The appellant did not apparently make any issue
of this. Mr. Elias Mansour Sakour as the next friend of the respondents brought
this summons to have the aforesaid agreement annulled or at least declared
unenforceable on a number of grounds, some of which impeach the formal validity
of the “agreement” and a number attack the substance of it. The substantial
ground advanced for setting aside the agreement is that it was inimical to the
interests of the infants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>