CURATOR OF INTESTATE ESTATES V. PAULINA BRIGHT AND ANOTHER

GRAHAM PAUL C.J., SIERRA LEONE, KINGDON, CJ., NIGERIA AND PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST. GRAHAM PAUL C.J, SIERRA LEON. The point raised in this appeal was quite short and simple. The court below made findings of facts in regard to the testator as follows: - “The other evidence leaves me in no doubt as to his “luck of testamentary capacity at the time of executing “the Will” and again

“All this evidence points to one irresistible conclusion. “However clear and unclouded his intelligence may have “been on other subjects at the time of making his Will the “deceased was suffering from an insane delusion about his “wife which affected his power of considering the claims “which she had upon him, and the manner in which he should “dispose of his property”. The learned judge went on to say “Looking at the Will as t1 “whole I do not feel that the insane delusion permeates the whole “of the Will and has completely impaired the deceased’s “testamentary capacity”. The learned Judge then proceeded to of examine the provisions of the Will and having held that the most and the major of the provisions of the Will were bad for lack of testamentary capacity he upheld certain minor provisions.

In doing this the learned Judge relied on the decision of LANGTON, J, in the case of Caesar v. Bohrma (1938 1 A.E.R, 271). The decision in that case constitutes a rather startling innovation in the history of case law on this subject. I find it difficult to agree with the decision in Caesar v. Bohrman and I am certainly of opinion that the decision should not be extended in its application to other cases such as the present where the facts are so widely different.

The respondent’s counsel in this case found himself unable to support the judgment as it stood and asked lease under Rule 32 of the Rules of this Court to argue that the Court below was wrong in its finding of facts, This application was refused as it could not possibly be contended that there was not evidence upon which the Court below could come to the conclusion it did on the facts.

In my opinion the appeal should be allowed, the judgment of the Court below except only as regards the order for costs should be set aside and that there should be substituted therefore a judgment that the Will of the said William Highmanson Bright dated 16th August, 1932, is declared null and void in its entirety. The costs as between solicitor and client of both parties in this Court ought in my opinion to be paid out of the estate of the said William Highmauson Bright, deceased.

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA I concur.

PETRIDES, C,J GOLD COAST. I concur.