SIASUOM AND ANOTHER vs. KYI AND OTHERS [1971]DLCA2165

Date	1971-03-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2165

APALOO JA

ANIN JA

ARCHER J.A.

E. B. GAISIE FOR APPELLANTS

J. MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1971]DLCA2165
																																						<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" >SIASUOM AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KYI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 483<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
29 MARCH 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E. B. GAISIE FOR APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO, ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
parties to this appeal appear to belong to the Nvaviley stool family of
Brewire, Axim. The evidence shows that there have been in the past disputes
between their predecessors as to which party in the wider family was entitled
to elect a candidate to the stool and from which branch of the family the
election was to be made. One such dispute was determined by Morgan J. in 1904.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At a date
prior to May 1955, Chief Kwamin Gharmin II died and a person called Ebie
Mienzah was elected as a successor to him. This provoked a dispute in which his
right to do so was questioned in the Upper Axim State Council. The council’s
decision was adverse to the appellants. The state council’s decision was
appealed against to the judicial commissioner who reversed it. His finding was
accepted by the President who caused it to be published in the Local Government
Bulletin of 28 June 1963.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That
decision was final and is binding on the parties. Its binding efficacy is not
now in issue. But it seems that the parties have put two conflicting
interpretations on the second limb of that judgment. Accordingly, in order to
obtain an authoritative interpretation from the court, the respondents on 10
March 1969, caused to be served on the appellants an originating summons in
which they invited the court to determine:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Whether
or not the finding of the judicial commissioner confirmed and as appearing in
the Local Government Bulletin No. 28 of June 28, 1963, namely, ‘that if at any
time the question as to who has a better right to the Brewire stool is to be
considered, preference should first be given to the descendants of Ekua Brisie
otherwise known as Gyanteh Ekua’ necessarily restricts the right to the Brewire
stool to the descendants of Ekua Brisie alone to the exclusion of all other
persons.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 27
January 1970, the issue of interpretation came before Edusei J. in the High
Court, Sekondi, when counsel for the parties presented their arguments to the
court. The learned trial judge preferred the construction proffered on behalf
of the respondents and on 19 March 1970, determined that the right of election
to the Brewire stool was not restricted to the descendants of Ekua Brisie but
that their claim to the stool ought to be considered before any other eligible
candidates.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There was
also raised by the appellants, a subsidiary issue, namely, that Armah Kyi (the
first plaintiff at the trial) was not the head of the Nvaviley family and had,
therefore, no locus standi to seek the relief he sought from the court. The
learned judge acceded to this contention but said the remaining two plaintiffs
were entitled to seek the court’s aid in interpreting the judgment. He did not
say on what basis but clearly implied that they were entitled to do so as
members of the family. The appellants also raised as a preliminary issue, that
the matter before the court was a constitutional one and that the High Court
was bereft of jurisdiction to determine it. The learned judge wrote a
considered ruling in which he rejected that contention holding that as the
issue was merely one of construction of a written instrument, the court was
seised with jurisdiction to entertain it. The appellants contest all these
conclusions by this appeal.<o:p></o:p>