IN RE KRAH (DECD); YANKYERAAH AND OTHERS vs. OSEI-TUTU AND ANOTHER [1989]DLSC601

Date	1989-03-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC601

ADADE JSC

TAYOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

ESSIEM JA

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

KWAKU BAAH (WITH HIM BOSOMPRAH) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLSC601
																																						<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 KRAH (DECD); YANKYERAAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OSEI-TUTU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 638<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:
22
MARCH 1989<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">

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

KWAKU BAAH (WITH HIM BOSOMPRAH) FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.<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">

ADADE, TAYOR, FRANCOIS AND WUAKU JJSC
AND&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>ESSIEM JA

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF WUAKU JSC<o:p></o:p>Nana
Apraku Krah died testate on 4 February 1983. By his will exhibit B, executed on
22 December 1982 he devised “three separate cocoa farms situate at a place
commonly known and called `Sukusuku’ in the Western Region” to the testator’s
grandson, the third defendant-appellant herein, as the sole beneficiary. The
three farms were fully described in the will, exhibit B. The deceased, Nana
Apraku Krah, had in an earlier will executed on 8 January 1977 devised to his
ten children his properties numbering ten. That will is tendered as ten
children his properties numbering ten. That will is tendered as exhibit A. By
clause 2 (a) of exhibit A he bequeathed to his family absolutely and forever his
deposit or savings account with the Ghana Commercial Bank, Berekum, and by 2
(b) he proved 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">“all my
other properties both immovable and movable except and excluding (a) those
already herein given to my said children as above indicated and my cocoa farm
situated and being at Sukusuku on Sefwi stool land which cocoa farm I have
already and long ago presented to my dear wife Yaa Aworo.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
revocation clause in exhibit B, the will executed on 22 December 1982, states:
“I hereby revoke all wills and testamentary dispositions heretofore made by me.
“Thus by the provisions of section 9 (3) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360),
exhibit A, the only will and testamentary dispositions heretofore made by the
testator prior to exhibit B, was expressly and effectively revoked. Where the
revocation was not expressly made it will not amount to sufficient revocation.
Thus in Simpson v Foxon [1907] P 54 where the revocation clause stated, “This
is the last and only Will of me”, contained in a will made by the testator in 1903,it
was held that statement was not sufficient to preclude the admission to probate
of a will executed in 1898.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Nana
Apraku Krah was one time the chief of Anyinasu, krontihene of Kato, and head of
the Bedenfini family of Kato. The plaintiffs and the third defendant-appellant
belong to the said Bedenfini family of Kato. The plaintiffs’ case as I see it
is very simple. It is this: “when Nana Apraku Krah became the krontihene and
head of the Bedenfini family of Kato, the family properties which were all then
yielding income were handed over to him. Nana Apraku Krah asked whether there
was any money attached to the properties, the first plaintiff said that there
was an amount of ¢8,000, but when he handed over that money to Nana Apraku
Krah, the first plaintiff, who claimed to be the family cashier, was asked to
keep the money. In view of the controversy surrounding the ¢8,000, I will quote
verbatim what the first plaintiff stated. He said:<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">“When
Nana Ahwiti died he was succeeded by Nana Apraku Krah, the Anyinasuhene; he was
also the Kato abotendomhene, ie. the krontihene. When Nana Apraku Krah was the
krontihene I was still the cashier of the society. At the meeting the family
met and worked out its properties. The properties were all given to Nana Apraku
Krah to look after them. Nana Apraku accepted the responsibility to took after
the properties but he asked for the moneys attached to them. At that time the
money with me possession. What I have said about society earlier is the family
meeting. Nana Apraku Krah said I should still keep the money because I had been
the cashier for a long time. Nana Apraku Krah instructed me to get a virgin
forest for use of the family and its children. I went and acquired a virgin
forest at Sukusuku for the family. I then deputed one Kwasi Addae to go with
Nana Apraku Krah to go and inspect the virgin forest at Sukusuku. When he
returned Nana Krah told me that he had inspected the land and would like to
cultivate so me for the stool. He cultivated three separate farms for the stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before I
go any further I would like to make one or two observations. Trials are
conducted in the vernacular and interpreted to the presiding judge. The
dialects vary from place to place at times within a short distance of a few
miles apart. The interpreter and the judge may come from different parts of the
country. Account also must be taken of the level of education of the
interpreter in the English language</main>