Supreme Court
Action No. 97 of 1981
24th November, 1982.
Alcantara, J., O.B.E.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Plaintiff
Mr. Oscar Sabido for the Defendant

Probate - Wills - A later one will expressly revoking previous pronouncement of the later Will in solemn form - Proof of execution of the later Will.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Durrant Gabourel of Belize City died on the 17th day of November, 1980, leaving two wills. One dated the 12th day of April, 1967 and the other on the 20th day of August 1980. The later will has a clause revoking previous testamentary dispositions. The beneficiaries under the will of the 12th April, 1967 say that the later will of the Testator is not his will and was not executed by the Testator on the 20th August, 1980 or at all. They allege that it is not his signature or that it was made or acknowledge by him. They come as near as it is possible to allege fraud without actually pleading it.

The executor of the will of the 20th August, 1980 is asking the Court that the said Will be pronounced in solemn form. She has called one of the attesting witnesses, Mr. Rudolf Andrews. This witness' presence on the witness-box reminded me of the Rock of Gibraltar, impregnable and unshakeable. I accept his evidence of due execution without any misgivings whatsoever. He is a witness of truth. That is really the end of the case, but I would like to refer to the evidence of Miss Ivy Hyde, the common law wife of deceased, who incidentally is a beneficiary under both wills and really has nothing to lose. She came forward to prove that the signature in the later will was not that of Durrant Gabourel. Her evidence not only on the question of the signatures but generally has been completely discredited under cross-examination and I reject the same. I do not place much reliance on Doctor's evidence, some of his statements are vague.

It is quite true that the beneficiaries under the 1967 will have been disinherited without any apparent reason. Naturally they are dissatisfied and quite understandably suspicious, and therefore entitled to insist that the 1980 will be pronounced in solemn form. But that is a far cry from saying that the 1980 will is not a properly executed will. The testator decided to change his mind insofar as who his beneficiaries were going to be. Whether he was just or not is not for this Court to say. The question of fairness is not in issue.

I find for the plaintiff and declare the will of the 20th August, 1980 in solemn form. I dismiss the Counterclaim putting forward the will of 12th April, 1967 with costs.

----------OO----------