GUY NEE WHANG vs. VANDERPUYE MANISON [2014]DLCA2896

Date	2014-03-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/239/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA2896

JUSTICE APALOO J.A [PRESIDING]

JUSTICE GYAESAYOR J.A

JUSTICE MAGARET WELBOURNE J.A

RAYMOND BAGNABU FOR RESPONDENT

J. AYIKOI OTOO FOR APPELLANTS

[2014]DLCA2896
																																						<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" >GUY NEE WHANG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VANDERPUYE MANISON<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/239/2013&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: 13TH
MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>RAYMOND BAGNABU FOR
RESPONDENT,<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">

J.
AYIKOI OTOO FOR APPELLANTS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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 1.0pt 0in">

JUSTICE
APALOO J.A [PRESIDING], JUSTICE GYAESAYOR J.A , JUSTICE MAGARET WELBOURNE J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>MRS MAGARET WELBOURNE, J.A<o:p></o:p>FACTS
OF CASE<o:p></o:p>The late Joseph Borketey Manison hailed from
Nungua and lived there until his death on 21st
January, 2006. The Plaintiffs/ appellants are the Executors named in the Last
Will and Testament of Joseph Borketey Manison (deceased).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;One and a half years after the death of Mr.
Manison his family was called to the reading of a Will at the registry of the
High Court, Accra, purporting to be the last testament of the late Mr. Manison
Borquaye.&nbsp; The defendant herein, on
behalf of the children of the first wife, challenged the alleged Will and filed
a notice under Order 66 R 26 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004 (CI 47) and called for it to be proved in solemn form.&nbsp; When this notice was served on the Executors
they issued a Writ of summons praying for a declaration that the Will dated 16th
of May, 2001, was valid.&nbsp; The Defendant
filed a defence and defended the action.&nbsp;
After a trial, judgment was delivered on 30th July, 2012, in favor of the Defendant. &nbsp;The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the said
judgment filed an appeal and in the said appeal the sole ground of appeal is “The
Judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE TRIAL COURT<o:p></o:p>At the trial, two plaintiffs
testified and called four witnesses and they tendered several exhibits.
Plaintiffs’ witnesses included the widow, Beatrice Ankrah Manison and her son
Enock Bortey to whom almost the whole estate was devised.&nbsp; The defendant testified and called one
witness and also tendered a number of documents in support of his case.&nbsp; In the judgment which is found at pages 198 to 214 of the Record of Appeal
(hereafter referred to as the ROA for short), the judge reviewed the whole
pleadings, the evidence led, noted the burden of proof as required by Sections
11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323) and the allocation of the burden
of proof where a Will is to be proved in Solemn Form, considered the legal authorities
and concluded as follows:<o:p></o:p>“…
There is direct evidence that the testator did not have testamentary capacity.&nbsp; Whatever is in Exhibit “A” can never be his
deed.&nbsp; The evidence of the attesting
witness, PW3 and DW1, the psychiatrist show that the document is not the free
act and deed of the deceased.&nbsp; He ends
the judgment as follows: “On the balance of probabilities I find that the
defendant’s evidence is more probable. … set aside Exhibit “A” as not the deed
and act of the testator.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>PART OF THE DECISION OF THE
LOWER COURT COMPLAINED OF: <o:p></o:p>The whole judgment<o:p></o:p>GROUNDS
OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">The judgment of the
 High Court is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Further grounds of
 appeal to be filed upon receipt of the record.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>Relief
sought from the Court of appeal<o:p></o:p>The judgment of the High
Court Be reversed and judgment entered in favour of plaintiffs/appellants<o:p></o:p>CONSIDERATIOlN<o:p></o:p>In the case of Johnson v
Maya 13 WACA&nbsp; 290 the West African Court
of Appeal stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Where
there is a dispute as to a will, those who propound it must clearly show by
evidence that prima facie, all is in order, that is to say, there has been due
execution and that the testator had the necessary mental capacity and was a
free agent.”<o:p></o:p>In the case of Brown v Quarshigah [2003-2004] SCGLR 930,
the Supreme Court held as follows:<o:p></o:p>