HIGH COURT, KUMASI
Date: 20 NOVEMBER 1974
KORANTENG-ADDOW J
CASES REFERRED TO
(1) Nicholls v. Osborn (1727) 2 P. Wms. 420; Eq. Cas. Abr. 209; 24 E.R. 795.
(2) Re Willey; Groulding v. Shirtcliffe (1929) 45 T.L.R. 327.
(3) Re McLuckie; Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Ltd. v. Honeycombe [1943] V.L.R. 137.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
ORIGINATING SUMMONS to interpret the word “furniture” as used in a will.
COUNSEL
L. B. Akainyah for the plaintiff.
Ayim-Owusu for the defendant
JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J
This is an interesting case in which an originating summons has been taken out by Mr. Akainyah, learned counsel for the plaintiff, for the court to interpret the word “furniture” which appeared in a testamentary disposition. The main point is to pronounce whether these items:
one very old Arabella radiogram with records, one television set in wooden cabinet with antenna fixed to roof of house, and one very old Bosch refrigerator would fall within the definition of “furniture” in law, for by his last will and testament, Opanin Kwadjo Fordjuor of Bomso No. 2, near Kumasi, has bequeathed among other things “five rooms in my house including the furniture to my wife Abena Adomaa absolutely.” Those items mentioned above were in those rooms.
Mr. Akainyah cited to the court and relied on a number of authorities on the subject ranging from definitions in legal lexicons such as Stroud’s
[p.9] of [1975] 1 GLR 8
Judicial Dictionary (3rd ed.) and to such reported cases there referred to on the subject as Nicholls v. Osborn (1727) 2 P. Wms. 420, Re Willey (1929) 45 T.L.R. 327 and to Re McLuckie a Dominion case reported in [1943]V.L.R. (Victoria Law Reports) 137. He then referred to the definitions of the word in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as well as Websters’ International Dictionary. He also referred to the meaning given to the word in Williams on Executors and Administrators (14th ed.), Vol. 2 at p. 608. Mr. Akainyah went to the extent of arguing that everything that a house holder uses in the home must be regarded as furniture. In his submission a library of books or even the sandals worn by the householder must fall within the definition of furniture.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed.), p. 764 defines furniture, among other things, as “movable articles in a dwelling-house, place of business or a public building.” As may be observed this definition is too general. But we need not be bothered so much by this. The legal definition is adequate. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (3rd ed.), Vol. 2, p. 1198 puts the matter this way, “a bequest of ‘furniture’ means the same thing as one of ‘household furniture’,” and he defines those phrases at p. 1347 of the same volume thus, “Either phrase will include all personal chattels that may contribute to the use or convenience of the householder or the ornament of the house.” Williams on Executors and Administrators (supra), at p. 608 also defines household furniture in the following terms:
“By the expression ‘household furniture’ all personal chattels will pass that may contribute to the use or convenience of the householder, or the ornament of the house, as plate, linen, china, both useful and ornamental, and pictures.”
From these definitions it would be noticed that the emphasis is on two qualities—utility and ornament. In his submission it would seem that Mr. Akainyah laid emphasis only on the utility aspect. What he said about apparel cannot be accurate. Certainly there are authorities which exclude apparel from furniture. According to Stroud, “The Touch-Stone lays it down (p. 447) that a bequest of household stuff will not comprise ‘apparel, books, weapons, tools for artificers, cattle, victuals, corn’,” etc. The restriction, as Stroud states, is equally applicable to household “goods” or “furniture” (See Stroud (3rd ed.), Vol. 2, p. 1347 and to the cases there referred to on the subject).
We are fortunate in this case in the sense that there are cases dead on the points at issue. In Re Willey (1929) 45 T.L.R. 327 it was held that a wireless set is a piece of furniture and in Re McLuckie [1943] V.L.R. 137, it was also held that wireless sets, electric refrigerators and fire-proof safes are part of the furniture of a room.
Mr. Ayim-Owusu, learned counsel for the defendant, did not in truth and in fact doubt the meaning of the term disclosed by the authorities and the dictionaries. His contention, however, was that such terms were relative in their connotation and that what may be regarded as furniture
[p.10] of [1975] 1 GLR 8
by, say, people in America and Europe, that is to say, in the most scientifically advanced parts of the world, may not be regarded as such by the denizens of a remote part of Africa. To his way of looking at the thing, a man in the remote village of Ghana would have neither an aesthetic value nor comfortable use for such modern gadgets as a television set or a radio or even a refrigerator. To such a person these objects would not amount to furniture as contemplated by the law.
With the greatest respect to the view so expressed one would say that such a view may have availed in the middle ages, not in the twentieth century, and must be completely discountenanced. After all Bomso is a village situated only a few miles from Kumasi. Whatever light of enlightenment that may have reached Kumasi will, without doubt, not have passed it by. And I will hold that the inhabitants of Bomso will not be so backward as not to know either the utility or the aesthetic value of a television set, radio set or a refrigerator.
In my view those three items of household articles mentioned in the will of the late Opanin Kwadjo Fordjuor fall within the definition of furniture.
DECISION
Order Accordingly.
J. D.
