There is sufficient case law jurisprudence from our courts and even statutory empowerment that in the construction of deeds and documents, the principal consideration is to ascertain the intention of the parties, and that the said intention must be gathered from the document itself. The case of Biney v Biney [1974] 1 GLR 318 outlined the guiding principles on this intentionalist approach regarding the construction of deeds and documents as follows: i. The construction must be as near to the mind and intention of the author as the law would permit; ii. The intention must be gathered from the written expression of the author’s intention; and iii. Technical words of limitation in a document must have their strict legal effect. In a subsequent decision by this apex court, the above principles were reiterated by Wood JSC (as she was then) in Nana Yaw Osei v Australian Gold Ltd [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 69 as follows: “The above construction does in my view conform to the basic rules of interpretation of documents, namely that the interpretation must be nearly as close to the mind and intention of the maker as is possible and the intention must be ascertained from the document as a whole with the words used being given their plain and natural meaning and within the context in which they are used.” Similarly, in Gorman & Gorman v Ansong [2012] SCGLR 174, the Supreme Court held that: “The general rule regarding the construction of documents was that the court must give effect to the intention of the parties as found in the document and not what was intended to have been written so as to give effect to the intention expressed. The courts would be `hesitant to construe private documents outside the four corners of the documents for good reason. Contracts and other written documents between private individuals were presumed, unless otherwise proven, to represent the intentions of the parties. Thus, any undue inference by the courts, would fly in the face of the sanctity attached to such documents. However, the general rule was not in any way absolute. Ultimately, interpretation of contracts or documents of any kind must give effect to the true intent of the parties. The courts were in duty bound to give effect to the parties’ written intentions. But the courts must also consider in appropriate case, surrounding circumstances, which had the effect of elucidating the intentions of the parties.”