Clement Dodd Jnr v Norma Jean Dood and Carol Dodd
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Coram: Morrison, J. |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2010 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2010] 5 JJC 0401 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 04 May 2010 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN COMMON LAW
Will - Wills Act - partial obscuration of gift to beneficiary — Whether obscuration valid — Doctrine of dependent relative revocation - Effect thereof on gift to beneficiary — Effect of maxim omnia praesumuntua rite esse acta — Effect thereof on validity of will - Grant of letters of administration cum testamento annexo by Registrar of Supreme Court — Declarations sought for revocation of grant — For administration by Administrator General - Accounting
It was none other than Ludwig Van Beethoven whose genius and sagacity produced this piece of profundity: ‘Music is a higher revelation than philosophy.’ Such a revelation it continues to be that immortal men under the spell of its mesmerism have rhapsodized on its effects.
We, no less, have succumbed to her lore. In this context, the cultural musical legacy of the ‘Studio One’ enterprise is as pervasive as it is enchanting. Studio One, popularly so called, is the business entity recorded with the Registrar of Companies, Jamaica, as the Jamaica Recording and Publishing Studio Limited whose registered address is Derrymore Road, St. Andrew. Founded by ‘Sir Coxsone Dodd’ the enterprise had risen from relative obscurity as a sound system to the grandiosity as it now stands. Sir Coxsone, whose proper name is Clement Seymour Dodd Snr. was memorialized upon his death with the conferral of the Order of Distinction for his contribution to the musical reputation of Jamaica. Mr. Dodd is credited to be one of, if not, then, the founding father of Jamaica 's popular music which has enjoyed global success and respect.
An undoubted musical icon, Mr. Dodd had expended his time, resources, and his considerable talent in fashioning a unique brand of original music which was the crystallization of the Jamaican people. The latter speaks to an impressive list of notabilities who received their impetus onto this musical stage from the Studio One enterprise: the Skatalites, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Ken Boothe, Delroy Wilson, Dennis Brown, Ernie Ranglin, Alton Ellis, Burning Spear and others of international acclaim.
The Facts
Clement Dodd Snr. was a precocious and fecund man. He fathered 6 children through three women. He married the first —named defendant who is not the mother of the claimant. In this divided camp as sketched by the pleadings suspicion is omnipresent. Suspicion has now spawned distrust. This famed Record Producer died on the 4 th day of May, 2004. Before his decease he made and duly executed his last will and testament dated 4 th day of December, 1987. In his will he named his mother Doris Albertha Darlington as the executrix of his estate.
According to paragraph 2 of his will he gave, devised and bequeathed to his wife Norma Jean Dodd and his children Sandra, Carol and Tanya, ‘in equal shares all my estate and interest in premises situated at 3135 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New York, in the United States of America, together with all my shares in the business operated in the said premises under the name of the recording studio and all stock and equipment contained therein.’
It is paragraph 3 of the said Will that has drawn the ire of the Claimant. It reads in full:
‘I give devise and bequeath to my mother aforesaid to my wife Norma and to my children Clement (Junior), Courtney, Paulette, Carol, Morna and Claudia in equal shares all my estate and interest in premises situated at 13 Brentford Road, Kingston 5, together with all my shares in the Jamaica Recording and Publishing Company Limited, with offices at 13 Brentford Road, Kingston 5.’
In the concluding paragraph of his will Clement Dodd, Snr. ‘gave, devised and bequeathed all the rest, residue and remainder of his estate to his mother, wife and daughter Carol in equal shares absolutely.’
His will was attested by two witnesses, namely, Ms. Lucille Reid and Ms. Arlene Davidson.
Doris Darlington predeceased Clement Dodd Snr, on the 25 th June, 1998. Probate of her estate was granted to Clement Seymour Dodd (Clement Dodd Snr.) on the 26 th day of March, 1999.
From the Agreed list of documents as filed a number of documents were entered into evidence and are comprised as Exhibits 1 — 11. Exhibit 12 is the Original Will which is kept at the Records Office in Spanish Town; exhibit 13 is the Kalamazoo copy (K copy) of letters of Administration with the Will annexed which is kept in the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court of Jamaica. Exhibit 14 is a copy of the “K copy’ of the said Letters of Administration.
Exhibits 2, 12, 13 are at nub of the present dispute. The foci of attention being the interlineation through the name of the devisee Clement Dodd (Junior) and is to be found at paragraph 3 of the Will.
The name Clement (Junior) is apparent on the face of exhibits 2, 12, 13 and 14. Whereas a visible signature appears over the interlineations on Exhibits 12 and 13 this is not so in respect of Exhibits 2 and 14 — and for good reason: they are photocopies, presumably of the original Will.
From the tenor of the cross-examination of the witnesses for the defence a number of visual apparent discrepancies have emerged as to letter formation and as to the number of some particular dotted lines. On the document at a place provided for a signature of a witness. The insinuation being that the copies are suspect and as such the contagion engendered by such suspicion have somehow virally affected the very interlineation of the name Clement (Junior) which bespeaks complicity on the part of the attorney-at-law Norman Wright Q.C., who prepared the will and Mrs. Norma Dodd to defeat Clement's (Junior) inheritance. That has to be pith, gravamen and substance of the complaint. I placed little, if any store by that contention.
In the ensuing concatenation, the defendants applied for letters of Administration with the will annexed on the basis of an order for administration by the Administrator General pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules.
The application having been made, the Registrar, through requisitions, sought explanations from learned Queen's Counsel as to the plight and condition of the will of Clement Dodd, Snr. It is against that background that the affidavits of plight and condition given by Queens Counsel are to be viewed. The affidavits sought to explain the circumstances under which the interlineation was done. It suffices to say, for present purposes, what the affidavits sought to establish: that the interlineation through the name of the Claimant by the testator though initialled by the Testator was unattested by witnesses who were present and that through an oversight they did not affix their initials as witnesses to the interlineation.
It is also important to note that in respect of the affidavits that were supplied none of the two attesting witnesses were forthcoming in order to buttress and support the affidavits of plight and condition. Unfortunately, there was no evidence led to verify that one of the witness is deceased and that the other could not be located. However, the Registrar being satisfied with the proferred explanation, proceeded to grant Administration with the will annexed in common form. The grant of Administration is, ex facie, one that was regularly done. Notwithstanding, the circumstances of the grant bears careful scrutiny as the Wills Act demand.
As to the matter of the multiplicity of wills afloat in this polemic I remain a trifle incurious at the incongruity that became manifest when Exhibits 12 and 13 were visually compared. Be that as it may, I find that the greater mischief that was made manifest is the violation of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Wills Act. There was a signal failure to obey the formularies and formalities of the Act.
As to the defendants charge that the Claimant's relationship with his deceased father had so deteriorated and as such was the primum mobile or the trigger for the purported or ostensible act of the testator interlineating the Claimant's name from the will, I can find no modicum of material support. I do not find that the Claimant's denial that this was so was an attempt at truth obfuscation. I accepted that the Claimant's involvement in the business of the ‘Studio One’ enterprise was a result of his specialist training. His evidence and that of his supporting witness was preferred to that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial