ASIEDUA vs. KORANTENG AND OTHERS [1980]DLHC1561

Date	1980-10-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1561

APATU-PLANGE J.

AGYARE KOI LARBI (WITH HIM ASANTE-TANNOR) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

KOFI ACQUAAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC1561
																																						<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" >ASIEDUA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KORANTENG AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 512<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:
30
OCTOBER 1980<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">

AGYARE KOI LARBI (WITH HIM ASANTE-TANNOR) FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

KOFI ACQUAAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-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">

APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APATU-PLANGE J.<o:p></o:p>On 18
September 1980, the plaintiff herein who claims to be the widow of the late
Geofrey Francis Djomoah applied by originating summons for the determination of
the following questions:<o:p></o:p>(1) That
by virtue of article 32 (2) of the Constitution, 1979, the plaintiff who is the
widow of the deceased is entitled to one-third of the estate of the said
Geofrey Francis Djomoah, being a reasonable share of the said estate.<o:p></o:p>(2) By
virtue of the attached regulations of the Presbyterian Church which was
subscribed to by the deceased, the plaintiff is entitled to one-third of the
estate upon the inventory of the estate of the deceased.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in her application stated clearly that the originating summons has
been taken under Order 54, r. 15 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p>Before
this originating summons could be heard, the defendants filed a motion asking
this court to strike out the said originating summons as being inappropriate in
the circumstances. This motion was supported by a five-paragraph affidavit.
Counsel for the defendants in moving the motion sought to rely on Order 54A,
rr. 1 and 2 which provide:<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">“1. Any
person claiming to be interested under a deed, will, or other written
instrument, may apply by originating summons for the determination of any
question of construction arising under the instrument, and for a declaration of
the rights of the persons interested.<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">2. Any
person claiming any legal or equitable right in a case where the determination
of the question whether he is entitled to the right depends upon a question of
construction of a statute, may apply by originating summons for the
determination of such question of construction, and for a declaration as to the
right claimed.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the defendants submitted that the gist of the whole case presently before
this court is whether or not the plaintiff was married to the deceased, and
that being the case, this issue cannot be settled by originating summons but by
a substantive suit. Counsel therefore invited this court to strike out the
originating summons as being misconceived.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In reply
counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff’s originating summons
has not been taken under Order 54A, rr. 1 and 2 but rather under Orders 54, r.
15 and 60, r. 35, and therefore the plaintiff being a person claiming to be
interested as a beneficiary in the estate of the late Geofrey Francis Djomoah
is entitled under Order 54,r. 15 to take out originating summons for the
determination of any question affecting her right or interests as such
beneficiary arising in the administration of the estate of her late husband.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now Order
54A, rr. 1 and 2 under which counsel for the defendants based his objections
and arguments clearly cannot be said to be applicable to the plaintiff ‘s
originating summons presently before this court. I say so because a careful
study of the provisions of Order 54A, rr. 1 and 2 will reveal that they deal
with the determination of any questions of construction arising under </main>