IN RE BILL (DECD.); BILL AND OTHERS vs. BILL AND ANOTHER [1986]DLHC924

Date	1986-12-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC924

AMMAH J.

D. A. NII-APONSAH FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ADDO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1986]DLHC924
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

IN RE BILL (DECD.); BILL
AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 706<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
9 DECEMBER 1986<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

D. A. NII-APONSAH FOR THE APPLICANTS. <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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMMAH J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application on notice filed on 10 February 1986 raising a preliminary legal
point:<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">“(a)
whether or not originating summons is the appropriate process in this case,
where to the knowledge of the plaintiffs there are contentious issues or issues
of fact in which there is no agreement; <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">(b) Whether
or not the affidavits herein disclose disputed issues; and <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">(c)
Whether or not in the face of the Court of Appeal judgment in Korblah II alias
Tetteh v. Odartei III [1980] G.L.R. 932, C.A. the instant originating summons,
should be dismissed in limine.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 9
April 1985 the plaintiffs issued an originating summons directed against the
defendants for the determination of certain questions as stated in the
originating summons touching on the estate of Charles Ahia Bill deceased. The
originating summons was supported by an affidavit setting out the facts relied
on. The defendants on 27 March 1986 filed in opposition a corrected affidavit
by order of the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
arguing the present preliminary point, counsel for the defendants referred to
certain paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and
submitted that they had been controverted by other paragraphs of the defendants
affidavit in opposition filed on 27 March 1986 and thus it could not be rightly
said that the facts were or are undisputed. Counsel further contended therefore
that it was wrong for the plaintiffs to come by originating summons and if
anything at all, they should have come by ordinary writ of summons. In support
he referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Korblah II alias Tetteh v.
Odartei III (supra).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiffs opposed the application. He contended that the case referred
to by the counsel for the defendants was not applicable. He contended that the
plaintiffs had brought their action under Order 54, r. 15 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and that there were no disputed
facts about the questions raised for determination on the originating summons,
and that it was unnecessary to come by ordinary writ. He referred to the case
of In re Deadman; Smith v. Garland [1971] 2 All E.R. 101.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
view some of the depositions in the affidavit in opposition may be irrelevant,
but those relevant would seem to controvert some of the depositions in the
affidavit in support of the originating summons; that may render some of the
facts to be disputed and could be resolved by evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>