NEEQUAYE (DECD), IN RE; ARMA AND ANOTHER vs. ANNA [1988]DLHC2281

Date	1988-06-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC2281

ARYEE AG. J.

AYIKWEI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

G. K. QUAYE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLHC2281
																																						<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" >NEEQUAYE
(DECD), IN RE; ARMA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANNA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 496<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AYIKWEI
OTOO FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

G. K.
QUAYE FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF EMELIA ARYEE AG. J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for and on behalf of Alfred Nii Teiko Armah and Diana Adei
Neequaye, two of the three administrators of the estate of James Kotey Neequaye
(deceased) praying this court for an order granting permission to the
applicants herein, to present the earlier letters of administration issued to
them by the court on 17 September 1987 to the Electricity Corporation of Ghana
for payment of the intestate’s benefits to them, thus leaving behind the third
administratrix, Gladys Oboshie Annan, the widow, who was later joined as
co-administratrix of the deceased’s estate. The basis of this application is
that the court which granted the letters of administration has power to revoke
it.<o:p></o:p>It is the
contention of the applicants that the co-administratrix, the customary wife of
the intestate, is by her unco-operative attitude, trying to thwart the efforts
of the administrators in the administration of the estate. As a result, nothing
has been done by way of administration since November 1987. The position of
Gladys Oboshie Annan, the customary wife, is that unless she is assured of or
promised a definite share of the deceased’s estate under the Intestate
Succession Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 111) in her capacity as customary wife, she
will never co-operate with the other administrators in administering the
deceased’s estate. Furthermore, she will not sign over her power or a letter of
authority to only one of the three administrators to collect the cheque, being
her deceased husband’s entitlement from the Electricity Corporation (on behalf
of the estate) except and until she has been promised her definite share of the
estate.<o:p></o:p>It is for
this reason, that the present application has been brought by the other two
administrators to have the name of the co-administratrix, the widow, struck out
from the list of administrators to enable the other two to do their work
without hinderance.<o:p></o:p>It is at
this juncture that the applicants turned round to query the status of the
co-administratrix under the Law, i.e. P.N.D.C.L. 111. At paragraphs (7) and (8)
of their affidavit in support of their application, the applicants say that the
co-administratrix-respondent’s alleged marriage is not registered under the
Customary Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 112). She
has however, I believe, two children by the intestate. The applicants say that
the present position is that, the law applicable is P.N.D.C.L. 111 and unless
the respondent’s marriage is registered as provided by P.N.D.C.L. 112 she
cannot have a definite share under PNDCL 111. Counsel further contends that
P.N.D.C.L. 111 cannot be read in isolation, but must be read in conjunction
with P.N.D.C.L. 112 and the Administration of Estates (Amendment) Law, 1985
(P.N.D.C.L. 113). The spouse, as referred to under P.N.D.C.L. 111, is under an
obligation to have the marriage registered, as required by section 15 of
P.N.D.C.L. 112. Counsel contends that section 15 of P.N.D.C.L. 112 is so rigid,
so mandatory that failure to comply with its provisions deprives the respondent
of enjoying the advantages provided by section 5 of P.N.D.C.L. 111.<o:p></o:p>The
husband died in 1987, two years after the coming into force of P.N.D.C.L.s 111,
112, 113 and the Head of Family (Accountability) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 114).
Time enough for the respondent to have availed herself of the opportunity to
register her customary marriage under the Law.<o:p></o:p>As to
whether the family can make any provision for the wife, that is a matter to be
determined by the family. But the widow and co-administratrix herein has no
right, as a wife unregistered under P.N.D.C.L. 111. By her unco-operative
attitude, counsel contends, the funeral and other testamentary expenses which
should be paid before the distribution of the residual estate, have not been
met. The only way therefore in which the stumbling block can be removed, is by
striking out the name of the widow, Gladys Oboshie Annan, from the letters of
administration.<o:p></o:p>In
opposing the application, counsel for the respondent (the widow —
co-administratrix), Gladys Oboshie Annan, says that the co-administratrix was
not appointed by the head of family. She was left out of the application for
the grant of letters of administration. She applied by herself to the court
which granted her application under section 5 of P.N.D.C.L. 113, after she had
satisfied the court of her interest in the deceased’s estate. Her status as the
widow of the deceased had already been recognised by the court before the grant
of co-administratorship was made to her.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent further opposes the applicants’ assertion that the funeral expenses
of the intestate should be deducted from the estate before the distribution o</main>