KWAFRAMOAH III vs. SAKRAKYIE II [1996]DLSC580

Date	1996-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1996]DLSC580

ABBAN CJ JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

ADJABENG JSC

TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

WAN ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1996]DLSC580
																																						<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">KWAFRAMOAH III<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">SAKRAKYIE II<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 542<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>TOTOE FOR THE 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">

WAN ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ABBAN CJ, AMUA-SEKYI,
BAMFORD-ADDO, CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND ADJABENG JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN CJ.<o:p></o:p>The appeal is from the judgment of the National House of Chiefs
dated 29 November 1994. The respondent invoked the original jurisdiction of the
National House of Chiefs by asking nananom to make certain declarations in his
favour. In all, the respondent sought four distinct reliefs. That is, a
declaration that he is the present Adansehene; that it is “now not customarily
open” to the appellants to accept any nominee from the Adansehemaa for election
as Adansehene; that the National House of Chiefs should order the appellants to
hand over to the respondent the stool properties and paraphernalia of the
Adanse paramount stool and put him in charge of the affairs of the Adanse
Traditional Area; and for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the
appellants from holding out any other person as the Adansehene.<o:p></o:p>The appellants, in their answer to the petition, denied the claims
of the respondent and pleaded, inter alia, that as far back as 6 June 1985, the
respondent filed a practically similar petition before the Ashanti Regional
House of Chiefs against the kingmakers of the Adanse paramount stool; and that
that petition is still pending before the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs. The
said petition was entitled “Samuel Asante Fosuhene v Baffour Akore II,
Krotihene.”<o:p></o:p>It may be observed that in the petition filed in June 1985 before
the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs, the respondent petitioned in his, private
capacity, while in the present petition the respondent styled himself as Nana Ntiako
Sakrakyie II, an indication that he is already an occupant of the stool in
question. Furthermore, in that petition, the kingmakers against whom the
petition was brought were ten in number including the Adansehemaa; and the
present first appellant was not one of them. However, in the National House of
Chiefs the respondent petitioned against only four of the kingsmakers,
excluding the Adansehemaa but added the first appellant.<o:p></o:p>In the petition which was before the National House of Chiefs and
which is the subject matter of the present appeal, the appellants in their
answer, among other things, pleaded that the dispute as to the alleged
nomination and election of the respondent had not been resolved and those
issues were still pending before the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs in
chieftaincy suit No 1/85 filed by the respondent in 1985 and that the
respondent was not entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the National
House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>When pleadings were supposed to have closed, the respondent filed
a motion asking the National House of Chiefs to strike out the answer of the
appellants on the ground that it “was a sham defence which did not disclose any
reasonable answer to the petition. Or alternatively, the answer should be
struck out as a frivolous or vexatious defence or an abuse of process.” After
lengthy arguments by counsel, the National House of Chiefs on 29 November 1995
granted the respondent’s motion, struck out the appellants’ answer as “a sham
defence disclosing no reasonable answer”; and consequently entered judgment for
the “respondent for all the four reliefs sought in his petition.” It is against
this judgment that the present appeal was lodged.<o:p></o:p>In this court, four grounds of appeal were filed by the
appellants. Then an additional ground was later filed. Yet a further additional
ground was filed on 4 March 1996. By consent of both counsel leave was granted
to the appellants to argue those additional grounds as well. The further
additional ground raised a question of jurisdiction and we intend to deal with
that ground first. It states:<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">“Because the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs could have dealt
with the respondent’s case, the National House of Chiefs acted without
jurisdiction in taking the case at first instance. The judgment of the National
House of Chiefs should therefore be set aside.”<o:p></o:p>On this ground learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
National House of Chiefs could not entertain the petition as a tribunal of
first instance and the case was within the original jurisdiction of the Ashanti
Regional House of Chiefs. He submitted that the National House of Chiefs could
assume original jurisdiction only where the circumstances specified in article
273(5) of the Constitution, 1992 were present. But in the present case, the
respondent did not show by his petition that </main>