AMANKWAH vs. KYERE [1961]DLHC1975

Date	1961-05-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC1975

DJBANOR J

ASARE FOR OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KOFI SACKEY (WITH HIM HAYFRON) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1961]DLHC1975
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

AMANKWAH

[HIGH COURT]

[1963] 1 GLR 409

DATE: 5TH MAY, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

ASARE
FOR OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

</div>

DJBANOR J.

</div>

&nbsp;

Sometime ago (I think in early 1957) the defendant as chief of
Kofiase together with his elders and people was thinking seriously of
demolishing the Ahenfie and building a suitable one in its place. For this
purpose upon their request the Agonahene permitted them to fell 300 timber
trees on Kofiase stool land. I think the trees were accordingly felled, and at
least £G700 was saved for the Ahenfie building project at the treasury at
Agona. Just then as ill luck would have it, the defendant was destooled, and
one Mr. Brentuo was installed Kofiasehene in his place. On the 1st July, 1957,
therefore, Mr. Brentuo, now as Kofiasehene Nana Sarfo III, entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff to erect the said Ahenfie at Kofiase at the cost
of £G3,060. The plaintiff began the work and erected the ground floor after
advances totalling £G700 had been paid to plaintiff by the said stool
represented by Nana Sarfo III.

Meanwhile the defendant Nana Kofi Kyere had lodged an appeal
against his destoolment. This appeal was heard in due course and allowed. When
he came back to the Kofiase stool the defendant refused to honour the agreement
entered into by the said Nana Kofi Sarfo for the building of the Ahenfie on the
grounds as stated in his statement of defence as follows:

“In further answer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of claim
the defendant avers that the lawfully gazetted Chief of Kofiase the defendant
herein, who had then appealed and later won his appeal against his destoolment
and his accredited elders did not execute the said agreement of the 1st of
July, 1957.

Furthermore defendant avers that on no occasion has Kofiase stool
adopted the unauthorised work of the plaintiff herein and the Kofiase stool has
made no promises to plaintiff herein to make payments to plaintiff in respect
of the said work.”

The main issue therefore is whether the agreement entered into by
Nana Kofi Sarfo was binding on the Kofiase stool.

But before I continue let me consider a point of jurisdiction
raised by Mr. Kofi Sackey for the defendant (but not argued). He reminded the
court that its jurisdiction is excluded in matters concerning the election and
installation of chiefs, and, inferentially, pointed out that if the efficacy or
otherwise of the agreement depended on whether or not Kofi Sarfo was properly
installed a chief then this court has no jurisdiction.

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this or any
other enactment, the High and Circuit Courts shall not have jurisdiction to
entertain either as of first instance or on appeal any civil cause or matter
instituted for: (a) the trial of any question relating to the election,
installation, deposition or abdication of any Chief whatsoever.”

I do not think that this court is, in the present action,
concerned with any question “relating to the election or installation” of
either Kofi Kyere or Kofi Sarfo. What I think is the issue here is whether Nana
Kofi Sarfo could properly enter into contracts for and on behalf of the Kofiase
stool, since at the time he was elected and installed as Kofiasehene, the
destoolment of Kofi Kyere had been legally stayed. The position as I understand
it is this: The defendant is not saying that Sarfo was not properly elected or
installed; indeed it appears to have been conceded that Sarfo may have been
properly elected and installed. What the defendant appears to be saying is that
in view of the fact that his (defendant’s) own destoolment had been appealed
against, and that that operated (by virtue of section 15 of the State Councils
(Ashanti) Ordinance, 19522 as a stay of execution, he (the defendant) was still
chief of Kofiase at the time when Kofi Sarfo made the agreement as chief of
Kofiase; and that therefore Kofi Sarfo had no authority to make that agreement
to bind the stool. In my view this action was not instituted for the trial of
any question relating to the election or installation of either Kofi Kyere or
Kofi Sarfo. It was instituted to try the issue whether the agreement entered
into by chief Kofi Sarfo at a time when the decision in respect of the former
chief’s destoolment had been stayed is binding on the Kofiase stool; or if it
is not binding on the Kofiase stool whether by any subsequent act the
defendant, as the present Kofiasehene has adopted that agreement in such a way
as to make it binding on the Kofiase stool. I do not think, for the reasons I
have stated, that the jurisdiction of this court in respect of this case is
ousted by section 41 of the Courts Act, 1960.</spa</main>