IN RE APPIAGYEI-DANKA (DECD.); APPIAGYEI-DANKA AND ANOTHER vs. APPIAGYEI-DANKA [1973] 2 GLR 188

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

APPLICATION to determine whether the person named as next-of-kin on a nomination paper was the one entitled to take the superannuation benefits. The facts are sufficiently stated in the ruling.

COUNSEL

L. B. Akainyah for the applicants.

S. K. K. Sotomey for the respondents.

[p.189] of [1973] 2 GLR 188

JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW, J.

The deceased in this matter, Dr. Paul Appiagyei-Danka, was a senior lecturer at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. Being on the permanent staff, he was required to, and he joined, the superannuation scheme. This scheme, as deposed to by Mr. Andoh, an assistant registrar of the university, is a pension scheme under which the university takes out a general insurance policy by which it insures all the contributors to the scheme. There are in fact two types of such scheme – one in which under the policy taken provision is made for the lecturer whose life is insured to name a beneficiary who should benefit in the event of his death and one under which there is no such provision. The witness (Mr. Andoh) could not say which of the two schemes was subscribed to by Dr. Paul Appiagyei-Danka. To the following question under cross-examination: “Q. Is a member under the scheme required to do anything?” The witness gave the following answer:

“A. He has to fill a form in which he must indicate the name of his next-of-kin so that in case of death he may be contacted for the payment of the superannuation benefits.”

The deceased in this case indeed filled one of those forms a copy of which was tendered and marked exhibit B. And on that form he named his mother as his next-of-kin.

The issue in this matter is whether since the deceased named his mother as his next-of-kin he intended her to take the superannuation benefits beneficially. It is the contention of Mr. Akainyah, learned counsel for the mother (the plaintiff), that the answer to that question must be in the affirmative. But Mr. Sotomey, learned counsel for the wife, the defendant, argues per contra. It is his contention that the very fact of a contributor indicating the name of his next-of-kin on what is described as nomination paper did not constitute such a relation a beneficiary.

By looking at the nomination paper (exhibit B) I cannot find any indication on it that the next-of-kin named is to be the beneficiary under the scheme. Next-of-kin is a person’s nearest blood relation and, as deposed to by the assistant registrar, the object of the university in requiring the making of such nomination is to assist the university to trace and contact the relatives of a deceased participant. I accept that evidence. If the university had intended that whoever is named in the nomination paper as the next-of-kin should be the beneficiary there is no doubt that the form would have said so. I have myself seen a type of nomination form in which it is stipulated that the person or persons named should be the beneficiary or beneficiaries under a similar scheme. On that form the proportions in which the beneficiaries are to take were indicated. That type of nomination form came from the Railways and Harbours Administration in a case the title of which I cannot at the moment remember. The nomination aper in this instant case is not of that type. It only has among other things a column for naming the next-of-kin and it stops there.

[p.190] of [1973] 2 GLR 188

Mr. Akainyah sought reliance and support from section 14 of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360). Section 14 of the Wills Act does not, however, seem to support him. The section says inter alia that if a person takes out a policy of life insurance and it is expressed on the face of the policy to be for the benefit of a member of his family then, unless the nomination of that member is expressly revoked by a will duly made or in any other manner approved by the contract of insurance, then in the event of the death of the insured the benefits should go to the person so nominated. The nomination in exhibit B is not the type of nomination contemplated by section 14 of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360). In fact exhibit B is not a policy of insurance.

I am attracted by the force of the submissions of Mr. Sotomey and would uphold them. It is my considered view that the very fact of a person’s name appearing in this type of nomination paper did not constitute him the beneficiary under the superannuation scheme. The sole aim is to assist the university authorities in tracing the members of family of a deceased participant.

DECISION

Determined accordingly.

S.O.