KWAKU vs. BOYIE [1988]DLCA778

Date	1988-04-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLCA778

TAYLOR J.S.C.

AMPIAH JA

LAMPTEY J.A.

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

H. W. KOFI SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLCA778
																																						<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" >KWAKU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BOYIE <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 589<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
28 APRIL 1988<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">

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

H. W. KOFI SACKEY 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">

TAYLOR J.S.C., AMPIAH AND LAMPTEY JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Nana
Tabiri Kwaku, the appellant in this case, was formerly the Nchiraahene in the
Brong Ahafo Region. On 5 May 1975 when he was the then Nchiraahene the judicial
committee of the Kumasi Traditional Council heard destoolment charges involving
him and by a majority decision of its members, gave judgment in his favour and
dismissed the said destoolment charges brought against him by the respondent,
Yaw Boyie, and two other kingmakers of the Nchiraa stool. The respondent and
the two kingmakers appealed to the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs against the
said decision given in favour of the appellant and on 10 August 1976 the
judicial committee of that house sitting at Kumasi allowed the appeal and set
aside the majority decision of the Kumasi Traditional Council and in effect, gave
judgment upholding substantially the destoolment charges brought against the
appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant timeously lodged an appeal against this judgment as he was entitled
to do, with the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs. Later on,
however, he abandoned this appeal which was accordingly struck out and the
judgment of the judicial committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs
declaring the destoolment charges brought against him to be well founded,
subsists unto this day as the last judicial pronouncement on his status. On the
strength of the said judgment the respondent and his kingmaker colleagues by
customary due process formally destooled the appellant. And he ceased under
customary law to be the Nchiraahene.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant has explained why he abandoned his appeal. According to him, he was
advised sometime in 1982 by the elders of the Nchiraa stool, who were
apparently not concerned with the destoolment charges, that he should
discontinue his appeal because he and the said elders of the stool had decided
to sever their allegiance to the Golden Stool and intended rather to transfer
their allegiance to the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The date
of this advice concerning the discontinuance of his appeal with the reasons
therefore is quite interesting for the issue of the proper forum at which
destoolment charges affecting the occupant of the Nchiraa stool ought to be
heard was, in fact, raised for the first time before the High Court. The date
it was so raised is quite important. This was because at the commencement of
the destoolment hearing, it was common knowledge that Nchiraa was within the
geographical enclave of the Brong-Ahafo Region, whereas the Kumasi Traditional
Council whose judicial committee handled the appellant’s destoolment charges
was located in the Ashanti Region. On 15 August 1984, more than eighteen months
after the appellant had virtually averred that he now owed allegiance to the
Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs, the secretary of that house clarified the
status of the appellant stool in Brong Ahafo in response to inquires made in a
letter addressed to the house by the High Court by virtue no doubt of section
50 of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372) after submissions of counsel for the
parties had been made to the High Court on the matter. The High Court judge,
Quaye J., put the matter 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">“The
reply from the secretary contained in letter No BA/HC 126/79 of 15 August 1984
is that there are some towns described as ‘islands’ in the Brong-Ahafo Region
which continue to owe allegiance to the Golden Stool and that their matters are
determined by the Kumasi Traditional Council in the first instance with appeals
therefrom to the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs in Kumasi and that Nchiraa is
one of such towns or islands and that the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
has no authority over Nchiraa as at the present moment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We are in
the circumstances left with a legal position showing that the appropriate
traditional council had at the relevant time when it had jurisdiction dealt
with the appellant’s case by its judicial committee. It gave judgment in the
appellant’s favour and its jurisdiction was never challenged by either of the
parties. An appeal to the relevant appellate committee of the regional house of
chiefs had been dealt with at a time when that committee of the regional house
assumed jurisdiction which was not impugned at any time at all during the
pro</main>