HENRY CHARLES CHRISTIAN V. SAMUEL TAWIAH INTSIFUL

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

HENRY CHARLES CHRISTIAN

V.

SAMUEL TAWIAH INTSIFUL

THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1953

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 1953

2PLR/1953/13 (PC)

–

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1953/13 (PC)

(1953) P.C. 07-1953

(1953) XIII WACA PP.

LEX (1953) – P.C. 07-1953

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

LORD PORTER,

LORD OAKSEY,

MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA

–

BETWEEN:

HENRY CHARLES CHRISTIAN (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS KOFI AMPAH) – Appellant

AND

SAMUEL TAWIAH INTSIFUL – Respondent

–

ORIGINATING COURT(S)

Appeal from the West African Court of Appeal. W.A.C.A. (Civil Appeal No. 34/51, 13 W.A.C.A 345)

–

ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING:- Execution of a will by blind testator – Construction of the word “blind” – Whether will of a blind testator still binding if testator had knowledge of the contents of will – order 49, rule 29, of Courts Ordinance (Cap. 4) considered

HEALTHCARE AND LAW – DISABILITY:- Blindness – Legal meaning of –How proved – Implications for validity of a will made by a visually impaired person

–

CASE SUMMARY

The appellant appealed against the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal which held that the will of a nearly blind testator was valid and reversed the judgment of the Court of first instance.

The two issues to be decided were whether or not the testator was blind, within the meaning of Order 49, rule 29, and if he was blind, did he at the time of the execution of the will have knowledge of its contents.

–

DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL

Held that:

(1)    blindness did not mean total blindness, but incapability of reading the will.

(2)    blindness had not been established.

(3)      further the evidence established that the testator “had at that time” that is the time of making the will knowledge of its contents and the will was valid.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2,000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES