IN RE ODONKOR (DECD.); ODONKOR vs. ODONKOR AND ANOTHER [1980]DLHC2139

Date	1980-05-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2139

HAYFRON J.

ADUMUAH-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

D.O. LAMPTEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1980]DLHC2139
																																						<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 ODONKOR (DECD.); ODONKOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ODONKOR AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 57<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:
23 MAY 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">

ADUMUAH-BOSSMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

D.O. LAMPTEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

HAYFRON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff on 14 June 1982 issued his writ claiming to be a lawful son and the
person entitled to the estate of James Tetteh Odonkor (deceased) and as such to
have a grant of administration of the estate of the deceased and to have the
letters of administration wrongfully granted to the defendants on 31 March
1982, revoked or declared null and void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff then pleaded in his statement of claim that in or about 1978, the
defendants applied for letters of administration in respect of the estate of
late James Tetteh Odonkor, that the plaintiff filed a caveat against the said
application; that on 28 July 1980 the High Court ordered that in the event of a
disagreement as to who was entitled to a grant of letters of administration the
defendants were to issue a writ to determine who was entitled to be granted the
said letters of administration. He then proceeded in paragraph 3 to state 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">“3. Far
from issuing the writ in terms of that solemn High Court order the defendants
surreptitiously managed to deceive the registry of this honourable court to
issue them with letters of administration in respect of the estate of the late
James Tetteh Odonkor. 4. The plaintiff says that the defendants were fully
aware of the High Court’s order and could only obtain the letters of
administration fraudulently. <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">5. The
plaintiff says that the letters of administration presently in the hands of the
defendants were irregularly and wrongfully issued and the same is null and void
for all purposes.”<o:p></o:p>It is
clear from the statement of claim, paragraphs 2 to 4, that the plaintiff is
pleading fraud on the part of the defendants. But the allegations are in such
general and vague terms that it is not clear to me what the plaintiff is saying
the defendants have done.<o:p></o:p>In Wallingford
v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 App.Cas. 685, Lord Selborne L.C. had this to say
concerning imputations of fraud at p. 697:<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">“. . . if
there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general
allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are
insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to
take notice... No single material fact is condescended upon, in a manner which
would enable any Court to understand what it was that was alleged to be
fraudulent. These allegations, I think, must be entirely disregarded...”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The rule
with regard to the pleading of fraud is that: “The acts alleged to be
fraudulent must be set out, and then it must be stated that these acts were
done fraudulently.” No acts of the defendants upon which the allegation of
fraud is founded are set out in the statement of claim. In In re Rica Gold
Washing Co. (1879) 11 Ch.D. 36 at p. 43, Jessel M.R. had this to say:<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
petition contains vague allegations of fraud; but I have always understood it
to be a rule in equity that where you allege fraud you must state the facts
which constitute the fraud. You are not entitled on a petition any more than in
an action to say to the other side ‘You have defrauded me; you have obtained my
money by fraud.’ You must state the facts which you say amount to a fraud, so
that the other party may know what he has to meet. I agree that it is not
necessary to state the evidence which shows the fraud, but you must state the
facts which constitute the fraud.”<o:p></o:p>