NYANTAKYIWA ALIAS KISSI vs. KISSI AND OTHERS [1981]DLSC2164

Date	1981-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1981]DLSC2164

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

J. K. AGYEMANG FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1981]DLSC2164
																																						<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" >NYANTAKYIWA ALIAS KISSI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>KISSI AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 480<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:
21 DECEMBER
1981<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">

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

J. K. AGYEMANG FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-applicant hereinafter referred to as the applicant sued the
defendant-respondents hereinafter referred to as the respondents at the Kwahu
Traditional Council for a declaration that she, the applicant, was the
queenmother of Mpraeso and that the purported election of Abena Kumiwaa, known
also as Abena Kwabena or as Comfort Aboagye, as queenmother of Mpraeso on 5
April 1976, was contrary to custom and thus not valid. She also asked for an
injunction to restrain Abena Kumiwaa in particular and others, being the
defendants in that suit, “from declaring and presenting herself anywhere and in
whatever circumstances as the queenmother of Mpraeso or acting in that
behalf...”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the plaintiff-applicant,<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">“. . .
judgment was given against [her] predecessor who thereupon appealed to the
judicial committee of the Eastern Region House of Chiefs . . . [which] set
aside the decision of the Kwahu Traditional Council and ordered a retrial of
the suit on its merits . . . [T]he defendant-respondents appealed against
[that] ruling to the National House of Chiefs . . . [which] in a judgment
delivered on 8 April 1981 reversed the decision of the Eastern Region House of
Chiefs and affirmed the decision of the Kwahu Traditional Council . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
January 1981, however, the original plaintiff had died. She was buried on 9
April 1981 some three or four months after her death. The applicant was
appointed her successor on 16 April 1981. She made an application for
substitution on 1 May 1981. It was not processed until 11 May 1981. That
application was granted on 5 June 1981. She was pregnant “and not in very good
health and . . . was not at Mpraeso.” She could not swear to the required
affidavit until 30 April 1981. She admits that she is, “out of time not only to
apply for leave to appeal, but also to appeal against the judgment of the
chieftaincy tribunal of the National House of Chiefs.” Hence the application
before this court seeking:<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">“(a) a
waiver by the court of non-compliance with rules 7 (1) and 8 (1) of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13); <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">(b) Leave
to appeal against the judgment of the chieftaincy tribunal of the National
House of Chiefs; and <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">(c) An
extension of time within which to appeal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondents raised a two-pronged preliminary objection to the
application. The first, that, this court had no jurisdiction to waive
compliance with rules 7 and 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13) under
the provisions of rule 66. Secondly, this court had no jurisdiction to grant
the extension sought. In support of the first objection, counsel argued that
there was no action pending before the Supreme Court. The word “action” meant
proceedings commenced by writ or other originating rule of practice prescribed
by the court. An application for an extension of time was not an action before
the court. The word “action” was not defined in C.I. 13. There was guidance
from the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 1. There
must be an original suit before this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When a
party did not comply with the rules then he might ask for a waiver in respect
</main>