ADUASIAH vs. ADDAE [1982]DLHC2079

Date	1982-03-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC2079

SAPONG J.

KOFI OPPONG (FOR OBENG MANU) FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1982]DLHC2079
																																						<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" >ADUASIAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADDAE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 226<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:
1 MARCH 1982<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">

KOFI OPPONG (FOR OBENG MANU) FOR THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IN PERSON.<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">

SAPONG J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARPONG Ag. J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff sued the defendant at the Wenchi District Court, Grade 1, for a
declaration of title and recovery of possession of land described in the writ
and also an order for injunction. Judgment that the defendant appeals.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel for the defendant (hereinafter called the appellant) submits that the
magistrate did not find whether the plaintiff (hereinafter called the
respondent) has proved his case. He set out to do what he was not called upon
to do. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes to this. The respondent says
in respect of this land, the subject-matter for declaration of title before the
district court, that the appellant put him before the Techiman Traditional
Council. An arbitration was held at which he gave evidence, likewise his
witnesses and also did the appellant. The arbitrators gave judgment against
him. And being aggrieved he issued the writ at the Wenchi District Grade 1,
claiming the reliefs indorsed on his writ.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s counsel says that what took place before the Techiman Traditional
Council was an arbitration and so the respondent cannot resile from it, for he
is bound by the award whether he likes it or not. Learned counsel for the
respondent urges seriously upon the court that the Techiman Traditional Council
is not clothed with the right to arbitrate on matters other than chieftaincy
disputes brought before it. Section 15 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act
370), sets out clearly its duties.<o:p></o:p>With
respect to section 15 (1) of Act 370 it is provided that the traditional
council shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy which arises within its area, not being one to
which the Asantehene or a paramount chief is a party. By this it does not mean
a traditional council cannot arbitrate on any other case. All that section 15
(1) of Act 370 says is that matters affecting chieftaincy shall be heard by no
other body but by a traditional council. Having so held I maintain that any
traditional council can hold arbitrations. And so the appellant in putting the
respondent before the traditional council has not done anything repugnant to
any known law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondent invites the court in the alternative to hold that what took
place before the Techiman Traditional Council was no arbitration. And so this
court is to order a retrial.<o:p></o:p>What then
constitutes a valid customary arbitration? According to Budu II v. Caesar
[1959] G.L.R. 410 at p. 412 these are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
a voluntary submission of the dispute by the parties to
arbitrators for the purpose of having the dispute decided informally, but on
its merits; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
a prior agreement by both parties to accept the award of the
arbitrators; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)