AGNES MAGDALENE TANDOH AND ALBERT TANDOH vs. ADELAIDE BAMPOE, NANA BONSU, EMELIA TANDOH AMD MAAME NYAKOA [2020]DLHC10382

AGNES MAGDALENE TANDOH AND ALBERT TANDOH vs. ADELAIDE BAMPOE, NANA BONSU, EMELIA... [2020]DLHC10382

Date	2020-02-17
Suit No.	SUIT No FAL/57/2015
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10382

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

[2020]DLHC10382
																																						<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" >AGNES MAGDALENE TANDOH AND ALBERT TANDOH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ADELAIDE BAMPOE, NANA BONSU, EMELIA TANDOH AMD MAAME NYAKOA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -2.3pt;">

SUIT No
FAL/57/2015&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:
17th FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -2.3pt;">

HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING.<o:p></o:p>APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER REVIEWING A PART OF THE
JUDGMENT MADE BY THIS COURT ON THE 22ND&nbsp; DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 IN EXERCISE OF THIS
COURTS REVIEW JURISDICTION.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: -2.3pt;">

ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF C.I. 47<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;This is a ruling pursuant to Order 42 Rule 1 of CI 47 filed on behalf
of Plaintiffs/Applicants herein praying this honourable court for an order
reviewing part of the judgment made by this Court on the 22nd day of October, 2019 in the exercise
of this court’s review jurisdiction upon the grounds set forth in the
accompanying affidavit. <o:p></o:p>Genesis of the Matter:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;On the 21st day of October
2014,Plaintiffs &nbsp;to issued a writ against
the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) claiming
against them among others a declaration that the Defendants were intermeddling
with the estate of the late S.K. Tandoh.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This court
delivered judgment on 22nd day of October 2019, &nbsp;in which judgment, it declared among others
that the Defendants actions amounted to intermeddling of the estate of the&nbsp; deceased late father.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the
applicant’s case in this review application that at all times material throughout
the proceedings before this Court, it has never been an issue as to whether or
not Plaintiffs are children of Grace Tandoh. It was also canvassed that both 1st
Plaintiff and &nbsp;2nd Plaintiff, &nbsp;Defendants are children of the late S.K.
Tandoh’s ex wives children and not Grace Tandoh or Madam Yaa Narh.<o:p></o:p>In its judgment
the contents of the will of the late S.K. Tandoh particularly Clause 5 which
stated that&nbsp; &nbsp;House Number 1196, North Kaneshie was devised
to the children of the ex wives of the late S.K. Tandoh was upheld by the court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That although
this Court held that House Number 1196, North Kaneshie, was devised to the
children of the ex – wives for which reason all the children from ex – wives
were beneficiaries of the said house including Plaintiffs, in the concluding
part of the judgment, this Court mistakenly held that House Number 1196 North
Kaneshie was devised to&nbsp; Defendants only.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That &nbsp;Plaintiffs have been denied an interest in
House Number 1196 as beneficiaries contrary to the intentions of our father
despite the finding of fact by the court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This conclusion
flows from the judgment of the court which stated<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“Defendants
argued that house number 1196 was bequeathed to the children of S.K. Tandoh
with his ex wives excluding children with Grace Tandoh who are Plaintiffs” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That in fact,
at all times material, the only issue touching and concerning which of the
parties in the present proceedings was an ex – wives child was the 4th
Defendant and no other.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That there are
thus material errors on the face of the court record and there are sufficient
grounds for the court to review the portion of the judgment complained of&nbsp; is clear.&nbsp;
Thus this court in the circumstances is&nbsp;
mandated to correct the apparent error and/or mistake on the face of the
record.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;