AGYEKUM AND OTHERS vs WONTUMI AND OTHERS [2000]DLCA107

Date	2000-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLCA107

WOOD JA

BADDOO JA

FARKYE JA

KWESI DAPAAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

J K AGYEMANG FOR THE RESONDENTS.

[2000]DLCA107
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AGYEKUM AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">WONTUMI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
2 GLR 740<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
17 FEBRUARY 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWESI
DAPAAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.J K AGYEMANG FOR THE
RESONDENTS.__________________________________________________________________CORAM:WOOD, BADDOO AND FARKYE JJA__________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Wood JA. <o:p></o:p>I
agree entirely with the lead judgment and the reasons given therefor and would
only add a few words of my own.<o:p></o:p>On
10 February 1986, the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the
appellants) took out a writ of summons challenging the validity of a will and
testament purported to have been made by their late father, William Davies
Agyekum. The charge of invalidity was based on two main grounds, but for the
purposes of this appeal the particulars stated in the paragraph (16) of the
statement of claim are the most pertinent. By it, the appellants alleged that
“the said will was forged, and in any case,was not signed by William Davies
Agyekum, deceased.” The defendant-respondents’(hereinafter referred to as the
respondents) reaction to these serious claims coupled with their counterclaim
made the issue of whether or not the signature of the late Agyekum was forged
one of the central issues for determination. After hearing evidence from (i) a
court appointed handwriting expert; and (ii) a number of witnesses on both
sides of this divide, including a handwriting expert called by the respondents,
the court concluded that the signature on the disputed will was that of the
testator and gave judgment for the respondents, on their counterclaim, by which
they prayed, inter alia, that the said will be admitted to probate. Not
satisfied with the said decision, the appellants appealed to this court on as
many as nineteen grounds, namely that “the judgment is against the weight of
evidence” and eighteen additional grounds, most of which in any case offended
rule 8(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19), which among other things
requires the intended ground, to be set out without any argument or narrative.
I reproduce rule 8(5) of CI 19.<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">“(5)
The grounds of appeal shall set out concisely and under distinct heads the
grounds upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal
without any argument or narrativeand shall be numbered consecutively.”<o:p></o:p>However,
even a cursory look at the additional grounds of appeal shows that they are in
argumentative or narrative form.<o:p></o:p>But
perhaps the more disturbing matter is that in spite of the several grounds
filed at the hearing, only four were argued, and together. Even so, in the
arguments, counsel did not touch on the ground (4) at all, a ground which in my
view raised a question altogether different from that raised by the other
grounds of appeal. A reproduction of four of the grounds of appeal would, in my
view, clarify the point I have 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">“(4)
That if the testator herein scribbled his signature on exhibit B instead of
signing it, which offends section 2(1) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360) then
the learned judge misdirected himself by non-direction in holding otherwise. <o:p></o:p>