JOSEPH AKONU-BAFFOE AND 2 OTHERS vs. LAWRENCE BUAKU AND ANOTHER [2012]DLSC6416

Date	2012-12-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/6/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC6416

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

K. D. ASEIDU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

EBO QUARSHIE (WITH HIM EMMANUEL BECKLEY) FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2012]DLSC6416
																																						<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" >JOSEPH AKONU-BAFFOE AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LAWRENCE BUAKU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/6/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 12TH DECEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

K. D. ASEIDU FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

EBO QUARSHIE (WITH HIM EMMANUEL
BECKLEY) FOR THE DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA
(MRS) J.S.C., DOTSE J.S.C., ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C., AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANSAH,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case are hardly contentious. In 1992, Thomas Kobina Bremansu
executed a will and named the defendants/respondents/respondents (hereinafter
"the respondents") as executors. Upon Bremansu's demise, they applied
for and obtained probate to deal with his estate. When the respondents
attempted to take charge of one of Bremansu's properties in Takoradi, it became
known that the late Bremansu had executed another will in 1995. The plaintiffs/
appellants/ appellants (hereinafter "appellants") were named the
executors of the latter will. The appellants consequently brought an action for
"an order that probate of the estate of Thomas Kobina Barimansu granted to
the defendants be called in and revoked for want of interest and for
dissipating the estate." The respondents counterclaimed and sought
"an order setting aside the alleged will of the deceased dated 22nd day of
February, 1997 on the grounds that it is not the deed of the deceased."
The trial judge entered judgment in favour of the respondents based on their
counterclaim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court on
appeal. The appellants have brought the instant appeal on the following
grounds: <o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the Court of Appeal failed to give
adequate consideration to the Appellant's grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;That
the Court of Appeal erred in failing to appreciate the fact the trial court's
findings were not borne out by the evidence — <o:p></o:p>a. that the Court of
Appeal failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased who was advanced in age
could have thumb-printed the 1995 Will. <o:p></o:p>b. that the Court failed
to appreciate that, aside the absence of a jurat, there were circumstances,
facts and evidence on record that suggested that the 1995 Will was duly
executed by the testator. <o:p></o:p>c. that the trial court
having found as a fact that the testator was literate, the undue emphasis on
the need for a jurat was not necessary. <o:p></o:p>d. that the Court failed
to appreciate the fact that the trial judge erred in placing undue weight on
the fact that a beneficiary of the 1995 Will, Ama Amissah, died before the
execution of the Will, then in fact the actual date of death of Ama Amissah was
not conclusively established; and that the devise does not necessarily
invalidate the 1995 Will. <o:p></o:p>e. that the Court failed to appreciate
that the Defendants' whole defence hinged on the allegation of fraud, and that
the allegation of fraud having not been proven the Plaintiffs were entitled to
their claim. <o:p></o:p>It
must be noted from the outset, as the appellant rightly points out in his
statement of case dated 8th February, 2012, that this appeal comes on the back
on two concurrent findings of the courts below. There are numerous Supreme
Court decisions to the effect that an appellate court should be slow to disturb
the concurrent findings of fact by two courts unless the findings are so
perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record. See Obrasiwah II v. Otu
(1996-97) SCGLR 618, Achoro v. Akanfela (1996-97) SCGLR 209, Koglex (No 2) v.
Field, (2000) SCGLR 175, Adu v. Ahamah (2007-2008) SCGLR 143 </main>