IN RE ARMAH (DECD.); ARMAH vs. ARMAH [1989]DLHC2254

Date	1989-03-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC2254

LUTTERODT J.

BROWN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1989]DLHC2254
																																						<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
ARMAH (DECD.); ARMAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ARMAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 1
GLR 140<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 10 MARCH 1989<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BROWN FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS
FOR THE DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF LUTTERODT J.<o:p></o:p>Mr.
Wallace Amako Cofie Armah died on or about 25 December 1980. In June 1986, the
plaintiff, who is a son of the deceased, applied for the grant of letters of
administration in respect of the deceased’s estate. The defendant, his lawful
widow, resisted the application by filing a caveat. As the parties could not
agree as to who should be entitled to the grant, the court ordered the
plaintiff to take out a writ of summons for the determination of who was
entitled to the grant of the letters of administration. The plaintiff not
merely asked for the relief which is what in reality Order 60, r. 59 of the
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) requires him to do but
tagged on two others which I shall deal with in due course. The defendant also
counterclaimed for a grant in her favour or alternatively a joint grant to them
both.<o:p></o:p>I do not,
however, think it was necessary or incumbent upon her to counterclaim for any
relief. I will give my reason. To appreciate why I have come to this
conclusion, I would reproduce not only Order 60, r. 21(2) but also rule 21 (1)
which immediately precedes this rule. They read:<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">“21. (1)
Upon the motion coming on for hearing before the Court, if the parties can come
to an agreement among themselves as to the person or persons to whom a grant of
probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, should be made, the
Court may order that the caveat be removed from the file and a grant may then
be made. <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)
Failing the parties coming to such an agreement, however, the Court may order
that the applicant do issue a writ of summons against the caveator within a
specified period from the date of such order, to determine the issue as to who
is entitled to a grant of probate or letters of administration, as the case may
be. “<o:p></o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>The rule
clearly shows that the court has to determine only one main issue, namely of
the parties, who is entitled to a grant. The court can thus make only one
order. The court may decide it is the plaintiff(s) alone or the defendant(s)
alone or both, depending on the facts of the particular case. Therefore, it is because
the court can decide either way, that is to say in favour of one party as
against the other or both of them, that I maintain a defendant in a case of
this kind need not counterclaim, for the relief to be sought as is clearly
shown in Order 60, r. 21(2) of L.N. 140A is all embracing, if I may be
permitted to put it this way.<o:p></o:p>Be that
as it may, the record itself bears a rather dismal story of the unsavoury,
disparaging and highly embarrassing remarks made by the parties against each
other. I do not think it was intentional; most of them were genuine answers to
questions asked, all with a view to show which witness is more credible than
the other. I think the least said of these the better. I shall refer to them
only if the need should arise.<o:p></o:p>But
definitely, of the issues that arose for determination, the first two present
no problems at all. The evidence clearly shows as the plaintiff’s counsel
rightly pointed out that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1).
The plaintiff is the only child of the deceased.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2).
The defendant was married to the deceased under the Marriage
Ordinance, Cap 127 (1951 Rev.).<o:p></o:p>