Grant and Others Vrs Unilever (gh) Ltd and Others [2006] GHACA 11 (17 November 2006)

Grant and Others Vrs Unilever (gh) Ltd and Others [2006] GHACA 11 (17 November 2006)

The will of W. E. Sam did not devise the disputed property at Low Town, Cape Coast (Sam’s Hill) to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam; the language of the will does not support the plaintiffs’ claim, and the residuary clause does not cover the subject property, which had been otherwise disposed of.

Citation
[2006] GHACA 11
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Alec Grant Sam; Plaintiff/respondent: Jeannie Theresa Sam; Plaintiff/respondent: Juliana Sam; Defendant/appellant: Unilever (GH) Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Nana Afredu IV; Defendant/appellant: K. X. Y. Ahlijah
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Wills, Devise of Property, Reversionary Interest
Source Language
English
Succession Property Law Interpretation of Wills Devise of Property Reversionary Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alec Grant Sam

Plaintiff/respondent

Jeannie Theresa Sam

Plaintiff/respondent

Juliana Sam

Plaintiff/respondent

Unilever (GH) Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Nana Afredu IV

Defendant/appellant

K. X. Y. Ahlijah

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed property was validly devised to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam by the will of W. E. Sam
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the property as residuary legatees

Ratio Decidendi

The will of W. E. Sam did not devise the disputed property at Low Town, Cape Coast (Sam’s Hill) to Thomas Birch Freeman Sam; the language of the will does not support the plaintiffs’ claim, and the residuary clause does not cover the subject property, which had been otherwise disposed of.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Plaintiffs/respondents’ action for declaration of title to the disputed property is dismissed.