IN RE KWAO (DECD.); NARTEY vs. ARMAH AND ANOTHER [1989]DLSC603

Date	1989-02-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC603

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AMPIAH J.A.

GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE APPLICANT.

D. O. LAMPTEY FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT

APATU-PLANGE FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLSC603
																																						<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" >IN RE KWAO (DECD.); NARTEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ARMAH AND ANOTHER <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; [SUPREME COURT,
ACCRA] &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; <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 546<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:
2
FEBRUARY 1989<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">

GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

D. O. LAMPTEY FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

APATU-PLANGE FOR THE SECOND 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">

ADADE, FRANCOIS, WUAKU AND AMUA-SEKYI<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Francois
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the majority. On 16 May 1989 this court
dismissed an application by J.B. Nartey to be substituted for Nii Adja Kwao (deceased).
The suit involving Nii Adja Kwao, sought declarations against the status of Nii
Adja Kwao as chief of James Town. The action travelled through the chieftaincy
constitutional courts of this land, up to the National House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no need to recapitulate the entire history attending this rambling journey
except to say that after some inaction on the part of Nii Adja Kwao covering a
period of two years, the National House of Chiefs appeared to have called a
halt to the proceedings and refused leave for a further debate of the matter at
the Supreme Court. A motion No. 18/88 was filed on behalf of Nii Adja Kwao for
special leave to appeal to this court on the refusal of the National House to
grant leave, but before the application could be heard Nii Adja Kwao had died.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Two
attempts to resuscitate the matter by those who claim to be interested parties,
have been made. They have all foundered. The first was by one Nii Sampa Kojo
who described himself as Osiahene of James Town. The application failed upon
the unanimous view of this court (see In re Kwao (Decd.); Sampa v. Okpe IV,
Supreme Court, 26 October 1988, unreported) that the action was for a
declaratory judgment involving the status of Nii Adja Kwao which was personal
to him and died with him. This is the principle enshrined in the Latin maxim
actio personalis moritur cum persona.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no record that any person demonstrated sufficient interest to challenge the
ruling by way of an application for review. Consequently that ruling of 26
October 1988 stands as an authoritative decision in this matter. What has
however happened, has been the filing of a fresh application for substitution
on behalf of one J.B. Nartey, claiming as head of Nii Adja Kwao’s family. What
the head of family was doing when Nii Sampa Kojo usurped his right to apply in
the first place, is anybody’s guess.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
court in its ruling (see In re Kwao (Decd.); Nartey v. Okpe IV [1989-90] 2
G.L.R. 532, S.C. ante) refused the substitution sought on virtually the same
basis as the earlier ruling, namely that the action Nii Adja Kwao defended was
personal to him and could not survive him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
present application for review of that decision is based on grounds of error
with the attendant miscarriage of justice. For a properly regulated
administration of justice, some fundamental bulwarks must be recognised. First,
there must be certainty, consistency, and continuity of binding decisions. The
chopping and changing of decisions can be as capricious as the Chancellor’s
foot of old and promote an equal disability. Secondly, there must be a halt to
endless litigation. When an issue has been exhaustively considered, the court
should refuse to be seduced by the ingenious blandishments of counsel to keep
it alive. The quietus must be intoned for a decent burial.<o:p></o:p>