IN RE AMARTEIFIO (DECD.); AMARTEIFIO vs. AMARTEIFIO [1981]DLHC2136

Date	1981-02-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLHC2136

STRIGGNER-SCOTT J.

ADUANI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

MARFO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1981]DLHC2136
																																						<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 AMARTEIFIO (DECD.); AMARTEIFIO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMARTEIFIO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1137<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:
10 FEBRUARY
1981<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">

ADUANI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. <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">

STRIGGNER-SCOTT J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF STRIGGNER-SCOTT J.<o:p></o:p>In his
lifetime Bob Amarteifio (deceased) had seven children, it would appear by two
different wives, the plaintiff being the son of the one wife, and the
defendants the children of another wife called Rosina Amarteifio (also
deceased). In his will dated July 1947, and admitted to probate in 1954, the
year of his death, Bob Amarteifio appointed the plaintiff, his eldest son, an
executor under the will, and all his children beneficiaries under the said
will. One of the assets forming part of his estate was a building designated as
602/RL 3.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
time of his death, the testator, Bob Amarteifio, had leased the said building
to U.A.C. By clause 6 of his will, he directed that the balance of rents
accruing from his property annually should be distributed equally between the devisees
under his will—that is his children — but not until his wife Rosina Amarteifio,
the defendants’ mother had been paid 20 pounds of such rents annually. It is
the plaintiff’s case that clause 6 has been misinterpreted by the defendants to
mean that since the rent at the date of the will was 100 pounds per annum,
Rosina Amarteifio whose share of the rents now passes to the defendants since
her demise, must be entitled to twenty per cent of rents accruing at all times
from the property. The plaintiff therefore comes by an originating summons
seeking that the court gives clause 6 its true and meaningful interpretation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
time and point in the proceedings when the court heard legal arguments put
forward by counsel, it would appear the other issues filed for the court’s
determination had been discontinued or dealt with by the court at previous
sittings and before another judge, leaving clause 6 as the only issue for the
court’s determination.<o:p></o:p>In the
words of the testator, Bob Amarteifio, clause 6 of his will reads:<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
direct that my devisees shall distribute or divide the rents accruing therefrom
annually, and that in such distribution my wife Rosina Mansah Amarteifio shall
be paid twenty pounds (20 pounds) of such annual rent and the balance to be
distributed equally between the other devisees.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
strict interpretation the plaintiff chooses to put on the wording of the clause
is that his father must have intended Mrs. Amarteifio to receive 20 pounds only
of the accruing rents at all times. His counsel argues that the will was
prepared by no other than the eminent lawyer Adumua-Bossman who later became an
equally eminent judge, that if the testator had any intention other than the
dictionary and grammatical meaning of the words selected in the construction of
the clause as contended by the defendants, the eminent lawyer would have
brought out that intention when drafting the will.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Lawyers
are not infallible. They try in the best way they possibly can to express the
intentions of their clients in their own chosen words. In some cases their
choice of construction may coincide with the exact intentions of a testator
whose will they draw up, and in other cases they may fall short of the
intentions sought to be generated. All the authorities the court was referred
to in counsel’s submission lead to one thing and, that is the court must do
what is right by giving the will its real meaning and consequently the testator
his true intentions. On this note, Lord St. Leonard in Gray v. Pearson (1857)
10 E.R. at p. 1231 said that:<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
I give to the words their simple meaning according to grammar and according to
their plain prima facie import, I defeat the intention, I hold that I am bound
by every rule, both of law and equity, to see whether </main>