[2004]DLCA7118 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">GRACE AGBOKU & ORS.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">AUGUSTINE YAOVI AGBOKU & ORS.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:center; text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18-2003 </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> DATE: 19TH FEBRUARY, 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt; border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;border:none; mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR APPELLANTS.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">ESSILFIE-BONDZIE J.A. (PRESIDING), GBADEGBE J.A., ANIN-YEBOAH J.A.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt; border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;text-indent:.5in;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The decision of the Court was read by Gbadegbe J.A. as follows:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The question for our decision in this case is whether or not in commencing the action in the court below the plaintiffs (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the appellants) ought to have extracted a citation calling upon the last surviving executor to bring into the registry of the High Court Accra the probate of the will granted to them on the 29th of June 1994 in respect of the deceased's estate in compliance with the provisions of Order 6 rule 6(1) of LI 1515? It is important to note that whiles the defendants (hereinafter for convenience described as the respondents) were of the view that the action not having been issue in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the said rule was incompetent, the appellants took the view that since the reliefs which they were demanding from the court did not seek a 'revocation' of the said grant there was no need for them to comply with the rule. I must say that in the court below and before us in these proceedings the parties took substantially the same rival positions and as such this appeal arises within a narrow compass for our determination whether having regard to the plaint of the appellants their action suffered from a non-compliance with the rule in question which reads thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"Where an action is brought for the revocation of a grant of probate or letter of administration of the estate of a deceased person the plaintiff shall serve a notice on the person to whom the probate or letters of administration as the case may be was granted requiring him to bring and leave at the Registry the probate or letters of administration".<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> That the above rule is mandatory and a non-compliance with it would invalidatesic an is not in issue. See (1) Heward Mills vs: Heward Mills [1992] 1 GLR 153. It would appear from the proceedings before us that the controversy which we have to determine turns on the question whether or not the rule in question was applicable having regard to the plaint as formulated by the appellants. It is the case of the appellants that their claim did not seek a revocation of the grant of probate made by the court on the 29th of June 1994, and therefore they were not required to comply with the rule as decided in the Heward Mills case. I have examined the statements submitted to us by the parties and come to the conclusion that in so far as the appellants seek an order for the 'removal' of the 3rd respondent as the surviving executor of the last Will and testament of Nichodemus Agboku which relief if acceded to has the effect of recalling or bringing to an end the office of executor to whom probate was earlier on granted the action seeks in substance an order for the revocation of the grant made on 29th June 1994 by the Court. It being so, in my opinion the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 6 rule 6 (1) was fatal to their action as indeed the court below found against them. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I wish to point out that since the respondents objected to the competency of the action on the ground which the appellants alleged as the basis of their claim for the removal of the last surviving executor, this court has to consider the ground on which the relief for removal was based and deem it as true for the purpose of considering the objection. The compliant made by the appellant against the 3rd respondent is that he had abandoned the testamentary instructions of the testator and by his inaction enabled the 1st and 2nd respondents to resort to doing things which were not directed in the last Will of the testator, hence the need for his removal. In my thinking this complaint amounts to an allegation that he had renounced his office as executor and was conducting himself in a manner that was not in the interest of those beneficially entitled thereto. This charge in my opinion though not claiming that the probate was granted fraudulently or irregularly raises a matter which concerns the court's real object of ensuring the due and proper administration of the estate and justifies the revocation of the probate granted if proven. Therefore, in my view the mere fact that the writ uses the word "removal" but not revocation should not deprive the court from looking at the substance of the action to determine whether the appellants ought to have satisfied the conditions of Order 6 rule 6 (1) relating to the deposit of the probate in the Registry of the court. I think that this is a clear instance in which the Court must look at the substance of the action and not its mere form as expressed in the formulation of the reliefs indorsed on the writ of summons. This approach calls for an examination of the consequences which might result in the event of the grant of the claim of the appellants. In the case of Re: Loveday, In the Goods of [1900] P 154 it was said in the course of the judgment at page 156 as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua