Akonu - Baffoe and Others Vrs Buaku and Another [2012] GHASC 53 (12 December 2012)

Akonu - Baffoe and Others Vrs Buaku and Another [2012] GHASC 53 (12 December 2012)

The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the validity of the 1995 Will, particularly in light of the testator's literacy status, the absence of a jurat, and suspicious circumstances. The 1992 Will remains valid as the 1995 Will was not proved to be valid.

Citation
[2012] GHASC 53
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Akonu-Baffoe; Plaintiff/appellant: Kwesi Bruce; Plaintiff/appellant: Alfred Bremansu; Defendant/respondent: Lawrence Buaku; Defendant/respondent: Rebecca Vandyke (substituted by Vida Bremansu)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Wills, Burden of Proof, Revocation of Wills, Illiteracy and Execution of Wills
Source Language
English
Succession Law Probate and Administration Validity of Wills Burden of Proof Revocation of Wills Illiteracy and Execution of Wills

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Akonu-Baffoe

Plaintiff/appellant

Kwesi Bruce

Plaintiff/appellant

Alfred Bremansu

Plaintiff/appellant

Lawrence Buaku

Defendant/respondent

Rebecca Vandyke (substituted by Vida Bremansu)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1995 Will of Thomas Kobina Bremansu was valid and revoked the 1992 Will
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof was properly discharged by the parties regarding the validity of the 1995 Will
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a jurat invalidated the 1995 Will executed by thumbprint

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the validity of the 1995 Will, particularly in light of the testator's literacy status, the absence of a jurat, and suspicious circumstances. The 1992 Will remains valid as the 1995 Will was not proved to be valid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The 1995 Will is declared invalid.
  • The 1992 Will remains the valid will of the deceased.