OWUSU AND OTHERS vs. AMOA-OBENG [1992]DLHC2053

Date	1992-12-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLHC2053

LARTEY J.

JOHN K. KODUA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

R. TWUM ANINAKWA FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1992]DLHC2053
																																						<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">OWUSU 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">AMOA-OBENG<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 293<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: 8
DECEMBER 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN K. KODUA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

R. TWUM ANINAKWA FOR THE DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF LARTEY J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs are the pastors and members of the True Faith
Church at Mpatasie near Trede in the Ashanti Region and bring the action on
their own behalf and on behalf of other members of the said church. The
defendant was sued as the odikro or chief of Mpatasie and as representing the
stool or oman.<o:p></o:p>About three years prior to the issuance of this writ in June 1982
the plaintiffs had been worshipping and pursuing their Christian faith in
peace. That peace was disturbed when the defendant and his elders and the town
development committee told the plaintiffs that they were going to slaughter a
sheep for the defendant’s fetish called Kobi and that every person living at
Mpatasie should pay ¢5 towards the performance of the fetish’s rites. The
plaintiffs objected to the payment of this levy but offered to pay, and did pay
¢300 for the purchase of implements for communal labour in the village.<o:p></o:p>The defendant and his elders later purported to make certain rules
in relation to their fetish, which rules they sought to enforce against the
plaintiffs. Some of those rules are as follows: that on certain days declared
as sacred by their fetish nobody should go to the farm; that upon the death of
a person in the town their fetish should be purified before anybody could go to
his farm; that a woman in her monthly period should besmear her arms or hands
with white clay; and that since their fetish Tano despised goats, nobody at the
village should rear goats.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant to enforcing the rules, the second, third and fourth
plaintiffs were on one Wednesday returning from their farms when they were
arrested by agents of the defendant and arraigned before the defendant and his
elders who required the said plaintiffs to slaughter a sheep to pacify the
fetish Tano, which the plaintiffs refused to do. It was the case for the plaintiffs
that the defendant and his elders have since then harassed them and have even
threatened to burn down their church building. Upon these facts the plaintiffs
have sued for a declaration that they are entitled by law to worship and
practice their Christian faith in freedom. They also pray for an order of
perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, his elders or any other person
or persons from interfering with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their religious
rights.<o:p></o:p>The defendant who claimed to be the representative of the stool
and/or Mpatasieman of which the second, third and fourth plaintiffs form part
averred as follows: that when it came to his notice that various customary
rules and taboos had not been observed he met the elders and members of the
town development committee and the people’s defence committee to consider the
lapses so that the observance and enforcement of the rules could resume. For
that purpose he caused the citizens of Mpatasie to be customarily informed of
the decision of the meeting by the beating of gong-gong. It was part of his
case that in order to start on a sound footing it became customarily necessary
that the whole town of Mpatasie should perform the customary rites of
pacification and purification for previous breaches of the said rules and
taboos. And since the exercise involved money, a levy of ¢5 per citizen in
accordance with the decision taken at the meeting was imposed, the payment of
which money was voluntary.<o:p></o:p>The defendant denied that the plaintiffs objected to the decision
of the oman but admitted that the plaintiffs appealed to him to be allowed to
help the Mpatasie town in another sphere, which would not necessarily be for
the pacification rites. He again admitted receiving ¢300 from the plaintiffs
which money he described as the plaintiffs’ contribution for the pacification
and purification rites. The defendant further denied making new rules, claiming
that the elders merely agreed to observe and enforce the existing rules. The
defendant admitted the rules mentioned by the plaintiffs as some of those he
and his elders sought to enforce. It was the defendant’s contention that since
custom forms part of the laws of the land, the plaintiffs cannot opt out or be
exempted from observing the rules as laid down by the elders of Mpatasie.<o:p></o:p>The Wednesday referred to by the plaintiffs was described by the
defendant as Awukudae or Kuudapaakuo, a day on which by custom no person
resident at Mpatasie should be seen to go to the farm, and therefore when the
plaintiffs were seen returning from the farm carrying headloads of foodstuffs
they were in breach of the said rules and taboos. Consequently, the plaintiffs
were arrested by the servants of the Mpatasie stool and asked to pay an
acknowledgment fee for the breach, but the plaintiffs failed to pay; whereupon
the defendant slaughtered a sheep in accordance with custom. He averred that he
has done nothing to prevent the plaintiffs and members of their church from
exercising their religious freedom, and that they are still continuing with
their worship in peac</main>