REPUBLIC vs. ASSUA AND OTHERS; EX PARTE BLEWEY AND OTHERS [1973]DLCA2245

Date	1973-07-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2245

SOWAH JA

ANIN JA

ANNAN J.A

J. MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1973]DLCA2245
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ASSUA AND OTHERS; EX PARTE BLEWEY AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
SEKONDI]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 283<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
16 JULY 1973.<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">

J. MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

SOWAH, ANIN AND ANNAN JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Sowah J.
A. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the ruling of
the Sekondi High Court in which the court held that certiorari will not lie to quash
the finding or decision of the National Liberation Council published in the
Local Government Bulletin, No. 16 of 21 April 1967.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellants originally instituted an action against the respondents in the
Western Nzima Traditional Council claiming, “recovery of the Half Assini
Divisional Stool (property known as the Hoba Kyi, Allongoba family stool) which
said stool is the bona fide property of the plaintiffs’ family and which said
stool the defendants’ family unlawfully retain in their possession to the
detriment of the plaintiffs’ family.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
traditional council, after hearing evidence, decided that the plaintiffs had
established their claim and gave judgment for its recovery. Owing to the turn
of events in this appeal it is necessary to highlight some of the reasons given
by the traditional council in arriving at its decision. In its own words “the
issue before the council to decide is that who was the original founder of the
town Awielie now Half Assini.” The council then proceeded to trace the history
of the founding of the town of Half Assini and the stool to which the claim was
laid. It concluded that Chief Hoba Kyi, an ancestor of the plaintiffs, was the
founder and the first occupant of the stool. Thereafter various members of the
plaintiffs’ family occupied the stool until the time of one Boto Ackah. It does
appear from the judgment for reasons which were not explicit that members of
the defendants’ family began to occupy the stool after the death of Boto Ackah
and had been in occupation of it up to the time of this litigation. The council
has this to say on the defendants’ family occupation:<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">“It is
admitted by the council that the defendants’ ancestors have had long occupation
and been recognised by the past and present Amanhene and the Government; but
long usage in this country does not imply that the usage is correct or for that
matter does not entitle the defendants to ownership of the Half Assini stool.
As traditional rulers of this council who are thoroughly conversant with the
traditional and ancient history of the towns and villages in the Western Nzima
Traditional Council Area and who know the rightful and original owners of the
stools of the area, strongly object to the attitude whereby subordinate stools
are gifted to members of a different clan other than the rightful owners. The
council was of the opinion that the plaintiffs and their witnesses have, with
one accord, established a clean and robust claim and therefore unanimously give
judgment for the plaintiffs accordingly with costs to be taxed. Plaintiffs to
take possession of the stool of Half Assini, the paraphernalia and the lands
attached to it.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
foregoing analysis leaves no doubt as to the issue at stake. The claim for the
stool, in effect, was a claim that the plaintiffs’ family were the rightful
family to elect and instal the chief of Half Assini from within that family.
The stool might have been at one time family property but the judgment showed
that at the time of the litigation it was the stool for Half Assini. It had
lost its private character, so to speak, with the passage of time.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is now
necessary to consider the most important arguments of counsel in this respect.
He argued that the subject-matter of the appellants’ claim not </main>