DR. J. B. WINFUL, AGNES OFORI, DANIEL OFORI AND MARTHA ANANE vs. JOHN BREFO [2013]DLCA8080

Date	2013-05-09
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/69/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8080

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING)

AYEBI J.A.

TORKORNOO (MRS.) J.A.

MR. RICHMOND NUUBO SAAKA FOR PLTS/APPELLANTS

MR. ANTHONY BOATEN FOR DEFT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA8080
																																						<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" >DR. J. B. WINFUL, AGNES OFORI, DANIEL OFORI AND MARTHA ANANE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOHN BREFO<o:p></o:p>(DEF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H1/69/2012&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; &nbsp;DATE:
9TH MAY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
RICHMOND NUUBO SAAKA FOR PLTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
ANTHONY BOATEN FOR DEFT/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

KANYOKE
J.A. (PRESIDING), AYEBI J.A., TORKORNOO (MRS.) J.A.<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AYEBI J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the judgment of an Accra
High Court dated 10th day of November, 2010.&nbsp; The suit from which the appeal emanated was
filed in the High Court on 13th August 2008.&nbsp; The subject-matter of the suit as appears
from the judgment concerned the extent of the estate and the right to
administer the estate of the late Doris Ofori.&nbsp;
She died intestate on 7th July 2004.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is proper to refer to parties in the appeal as
plaintiffs and defendant respectively as in the trial court and I do so.&nbsp; The first plaintiff is the uncle of the
deceased while the 2nd plaintiff is described as the ailing
mother.&nbsp; The 3rd and 4th
plaintiffs are siblings of the full blood of the deceased.&nbsp; The defendant described himself as the
husband of the deceased but the plaintiffs regarded him as a concubine of the
deceased.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The action was initiated by a writ of summons which
as a rule must contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim or relief
or remedy sought in the action.&nbsp; The
plaintiffs therefore endorsed the writ with principally declaratory reliefs
against the defendant.&nbsp; Accompanying the
writ is a statement of claim.&nbsp; By the
rules of pleading, the statement of claim must contain only statements in a
summary form in numbered paragraphs of material facts only on which the
plaintiffs rely for their claim.&nbsp; It is not
allowed to plead or state the law in a statement of claim.&nbsp; Similarly, the evidence by which the facts
alleged are to be proved are not included in the statement of claim.&nbsp; It is also important to plead or allege the
facts in a chronological manner to make for easy understanding of the case of
the party alleging it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant case, the trial judge in stating the
facts, observed that attempts to obtain letters of administration to manage and
control the vast estate of the deceased sparked off the suit.&nbsp; He identified that the central issue for
determination, aside of the extent of the deceased’s estate is, whether or not
defendant was married to the deceased and therefore a surviving spouse.&nbsp; The trial judge formulated the two central
issues as far as he could deduce from the pleadings of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But defendant gave a background to the suit.&nbsp; It is that the 4th plaintiff and
PW1 in this suit, Nana Kwasi Agyemang used his name as a surviving spouse of
the deceased to apply for letters of administration.&nbsp; When defendant found this out, he got the
letters of administration so obtained set aside on the ground of fraud.&nbsp; It would appear from the indorsement on the
writ of summons and the statement of claim of the plaintiffs that, after
setting aside the letters of administration, defendant initiated contempt
proceedings against the 4th plaintiff and PW1.&nbsp; But the pleading which is disjointed in many
respects, omitted to plead the background to the said contempt
proceedings.&nbsp; That contempt proceedings
must also have incensed the plaintiffs as the in-laws of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is however evident on the face of the
indorsement on the writ and the statement of claim that, their contents violate
the rules on indorsement of a writ of summons and pleadings as known in our
civil litigation.&nbsp; Over and above, the
counsel for the plaintiffs displayed a lot of prolixity in the reliefs endorsed
on the writ and in his pleadings.&nbsp; In Smith
&amp; Ors. vrs Blankson (substituted by Baffour &amp; Or.) [2007/08]
SCGLR 374, the Supreme Court deplored the prolixity with which counsel for
plaintiffs/appellants set out the claims, issues and grounds of appeal because
they amounted more to submissions than pleadings.&nbsp; For purposes of effective case manage</main>