ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER vs. ANAFO VI AND ANOTHER [1994]DLSC737

Date	1994-03-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1994]DLSC737

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC.

T G KUMI FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS.

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS.

[1994]DLSC737
																																						<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">ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER<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">ANAFO VI AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 2 GLR 1<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: 22 MARCH
1994<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>T G KUMI FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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 FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND AMPIAH JJSC. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH JSC.<o:p></o:p>(delivering the first judgment at the invitation of Francois JSC).
This appeal is from a decision of the chieftaincy tribunal of the National
House of Chiefs. The decision is dated 20 November 1986. Somewhere in August
1975 the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs)
representing the Dominase-Moree section of the Nsona stool family of Nkanfoa
initiated proceedings at the judicial committee of the Oguaa Traditional
Council against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the
defendants) representing the Effutu section of the Nsona stool family of
Nkanfoa, claiming:<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:l5 level1 lfo8;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “An order for the destoolment
of the first defendant herein. <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:l5 level1 lfo8;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). A declaration that the Nsona
stool of Nkanfoa belongs jointly to the plaintiffs’ section and the defendants’
section and the defendants’ section of the Nsona stool family of Nkanfoa. <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:l5 level1 lfo8;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3). A declaration that the
nomination, election and installation of candidates to the Nkanfoa Nsona stool
is rotatory amongst the two sections of the Nsona stool family according to
Nkanfoa native custom and traditional. <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:l5 level1 lfo8;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4). A declaration that the Nkanfoa
Nsona stool properties, movable and immovable, belong jointly to the said two sections
of the stool family. <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:l5 level1 lfo8;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(5).
An order for an account of the Nkanfoa stool landed properties
from the time the first defendant was enstooled, and an order for the payment
of half-portion thereof to the plaintiffs as joint owners.”<o:p></o:p>The first plaintiff sued as the head of his section of the Nsona
family and the second plaintiff as an elder of the same section. The first
defendant was sued as the incumbent occupant of the Nkanfoa stool and the
second defendant as the head of his section of the family. In the course of the
trial, the first plaintiff died and was duly substituted. The second defendant
died on 18 September 1984 and was also substituted. Farther in the proceedings
at the appeal stages, the first defendant also died and was substituted.<o:p></o:p>The judicial committee of the Oguaa Traditional Council heard the
matter and gave judgment on 20 September 1976. The plaintiffs appealed against
the decision to the chieftaincy tribunal of the Central Regional House of
Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>