Marfoa Vrs Agyeiwaa [2016] GHASC 84 (9 November 2016)

Marfoa Vrs Agyeiwaa [2016] GHASC 84 (9 November 2016)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within jurisdiction to make reasonable provision for the appellant under section 13(1) of the Wills Act and article 22(1) of the Constitution, but the orders made were excessive and amounted to re-writing the will. The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application on technicalities and failing to consider the merits. The appellant was entitled to reasonable provision limited to occupation of one room in the Akokoaso house for life and a life interest in the one-third share of the Odwaa farm with her three children. The decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the High Court's decision restored with modifications.

Citation
[2016] GHASC 84
Parties
Appellant/respondent/appellant: Akua Marfoa; Respondent/appellant/respondent: Margaret Akosua Agyeiwaa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
9 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Court of Appeal decision set aside; High Court decision restored with modifications.
Legal Topics
Wills, Reasonable Provision for Spouse, Dependant's Relief, Interpretation of Constitutional Rights, Distribution of Estate
Source Language
English
Succession Law Family Law Constitutional Law Wills Reasonable Provision for Spouse Dependant's Relief Interpretation of Constitutional Rights Distribution of Estate

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akua Marfoa

Appellant/respondent/appellant

Margaret Akosua Agyeiwaa

Respondent/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making orders for reasonable provision out of the estate of the late George Asare Ntim for the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the High Court's orders and refusing the application for reasonable provision
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's orders amounted to re-writing the testator's will

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within jurisdiction to make reasonable provision for the appellant under section 13(1) of the Wills Act and article 22(1) of the Constitution, but the orders made were excessive and amounted to re-writing the will. The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application on technicalities and failing to consider the merits. The appellant was entitled to reasonable provision limited to occupation of one room in the Akokoaso house for life and a life interest in the one-third share of the Odwaa farm with her three children. The decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the High Court's decision restored with modifications.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Court of Appeal decision set aside; High Court decision restored with modifications.

Orders

  • Appellant permitted to occupy the Akokoaso room in which she lived at the time of the testator’s death for life.
  • The one-third share of the Odwaa farm to go to the appellant and her three children for her life, thereafter reverting to the devisees under the will.