REPUBLIC vs. KUMASI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE NANA KOFI DEI [1973]DLCA2263

Date	1973-05-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2263

APALOO JA

SOWAH JA

ANIN J.A.

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

AGYEPONG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLCA2263
																																						<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>KUMASI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE NANA KOFI DEI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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 73<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:
9 APRIL 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">

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.<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, SOWAH AND ANIN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.A.<o:p></o:p>Thirty
years before the institution of the present action in the Kumasi Traditional
Council, the defendant-applicant-respondent (hereinafter called the
respondent), swore the great oath of Ashanti to the effect that neither the
plaintiff-respondent-appellant (hereinafter called simply the appellant) nor
any member of his family was a royal of the Ntonso (Oppong Tenteng) stool. The
respondent was the occupant of the Ntonso stool both at the time when he swore
the great oath, and also 30 years later at the date of filing of the writ of
summons herein. But for a period during the Nkrumah regime he was replaced as
Ntonsohene by the late Nana Yiadom Boakye Ansah, a kinsman of the appellant.
The constitutional status quo was however restored by the Chieftaincy
(Amendment) Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 112), which accomplished by one stroke both
the summary destoolment of the late Nana Yiadom Boakye Ansah and the
reinstatement of the respondent as Ntonsohene. In the inevitable partisan
jubilation over the respondent’s reinstatement, his supporters were alleged by
the destooled chief to have defamed him and his family (i.e. the Nyomaase
branch of the Dako royal stool family of Ntonso) thus:<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">“(i)
Boakye Ansah does not belong to the royal family of Ntonso and therefore cannot
be the chief of Ntonso; <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">(ii) that
Nyomaasefuo are slaves, ineligible family that are trying in vain to usurp
somebody’s stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant promptly applied for a writ of summons to issue out of the Kumasi
Traditional Council against the respondent’s family for “judicial relief in the
sum of ¢240 to prove the above-quoted allegations,” and for a ruling about
which of the two rival stool houses was entitled to occupy Ntonso stool. The
appellant’s application was duly brought to the notice of the respondent for
his comments; and he thereupon applied to be substituted for “Nana Akwasua
Akyiaa Ababio (Ex Obaapanin of Ntonso) and the Atoaase branch of Dako royal
stool family of Ntonso,” the named defendants. The respondent applied for substitution
for two stated reasons: first he was the reigning Ntonsohene, and secondly he
had 30 years previously sworn the great oath and had publicly asserted that
neither the said Boakye Ansah nor any member of his family was a royal of the
Ntonso stool, and consequently, they were not entitled to occupy that stool. As
his earlier great oath had not been responded to by the appellant’s family, the
respondent took advantage of this fresh writ and repeated the great oath,
thereby challenging the appellant to respond to and join issue on his claim
that Boakye Ansah’s family were not royals of the Ntonso stool.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This open
challenge was promptly accepted by the appellant’s family; and on 24 August
1967 one Kwabena Wusu-Ansah, who described himself as odehyee, i.e. royal of
the Nyomaase branch of the Dako royal stool family of Ntonso duly responded to
the respondent’s great oath and counterclaimed that the Nyomaase family are the
true royals of the Ntonso (Oppong Tenteng) stool. The Kumasi Traditional
Council which had in the mean time received all relevant documents from both
parties set down what is described as the “constitutional case involving both
parties” for hearing on 3 July 1969. A fortnight later, it pronounced judgment
in favour of the appellant herein, and made a customary award of ¢160 against
the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>