KWAGYANE AND OTHERS vs. AGYEI AND OTHERS [1992]DLCA2037

Date	1992-11-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA2037

AMPIAH JA

BROBBEY J.A.

KWAPONG J.

J.K. AGYEMANG (WITH HIM NTIAMOAH AND AGYEMAN-BEMPAH) FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS.

JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM YEBOAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.

[1992]DLCA2037
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KWAGYANE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AGYEI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 189<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 5
NOVEMBER 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J.K. AGYEMANG (WITH HIM NTIAMOAH AND AGYEMAN-BEMPAH) FOR THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS.<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">

JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM YEBOAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

AMPIAH, BROBBEY JJ.A. AND KWAPONG J. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 30 July 1992 we dismissed the appeal by the defendants and
affirmed the decision of the High Court, Koforidua. I now proceed to give
reasons for our judgment.<o:p></o:p>On 2 February 1990 the High Court, Koforidua gave judgment for the
plaintiffs in their action before the court. Reasons for that judgment were
given on 8 March 1990. In that action the first plaintiff, as head of the
Animwaa Donkor family of the Asona clan of Mpraeso, Kwahu, and the second
plaintiff, as the customary successor to the late Ohemaa Abena Mirekua of the
same family, claimed against the first defendant, Nana Kwame Kissi III
(substituted later by Nana Wiafe Kwagyane I), the Ohene of Mpraeso and the
second defendant, the queenmother of Mpraeso:<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">“(1) A declaration that the judgment purported to have been
delivered by the tribunal of the Benkumhene of Kwahu on 28 October 1931 in a
suit entitled Ohemaa Abena Mirekua [Plaintiff] v. Ohene- Kofi Ampadu [Defendant]
was and is a nullity having been procured in circumstances amounting to fraud
on the plaintiff in that suit and also in breach of natural justice. <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) A further declaration that all acts, deeds and things done on
the basis of and in pursuance of the said judgment are null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.”<o:p></o:p>The defendants resisted the claim and averred that the queenmother
stool of Mpraeso customarily belonged to their section of the family, namely
the Ankora family.<o:p></o:p>After the close of pleadings, counsel agreed to set down the
following issues for determination under Order 25, r. 2 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A):<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a).&nbsp; “That the matter before the
court was a chieftaincy matter and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain
it. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b).&nbsp; That the matter was res
judicata. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(c).&nbsp;
That the action was statute-barred.”<o:p></o:p>Before the commencement of arguments, Mr. J.K. Agyemang, counsel
for the defendants submitted: “We have set out three matters and the disposal
of any of them in favour of the defendants must dispose of the whole case.” The
challenge was accepted by counsel for the plaintiffs and the court. It was in
the light of this submission that counsel argued the issues. After arguments by
both counsel, the learned trial judge disposed of the matter by upholding the
claims of the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>