BIN AND OTHERS vs ABBAN [1999]DLSC116

Date	1999-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC116

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

AKUFFO JSC

CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR THE APPELLANTS.

JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM OSAFO BUABENG AND DANSO ACHEAMPONG) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLSC116
																																						<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">BIN 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">ABBAN<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
1 GLR 194<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
17 FEBRUARY 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES
HAYIBOR FOR THE APPELLANTS.JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM
OSAFO BUABENG AND DANSO ACHEAMPONG) FOR THE RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO,
KPEGAH, ADJABENG AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT
OF EDWARD WIREDU JSC<o:p></o:p>Edwared
wiredu JSC delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal from the
judgment of the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs dated 8 May
1991 which affirmed the decision of the judicial committee of the Central
Regional House of Chiefs in favour of the respondent.<o:p></o:p>Two
main submissions were urged on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. The
first was that, the capacity in which the respondent sued, and by which he
claims to have the sole authority and responsibility as the head of the Ntwea
royal family to nominate a candidate for installation as the krontihene of the
Atwia Bando stool of the Eguafo Traditional Area, was one of status and that
both the judicial committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs and the
National House of Chiefs were not clothed with jurisdiction to adjudicate on
and determine who is the accredited head of the Ntwea abusua in the Eguafo
Traditional Area. It was therefore urged on behalf of the appellants’ that the
determination of the issue of headship not being “a cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy” within the language and meaning of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act
370) the decision in favour of the respondent was null and void.<o:p></o:p>The
second ground urged on behalf of the appellants was that on the merits, two
issues raised on the evidence for resolution by the National House of Chiefs,
were not resolved, namely the issues as to headship of the Ntwea family and the
issue as to whether the second appellant was nominated by the Proper person to
ascend the Bando Stool? We will first deal with the second ground urged on
behalf of the appellants.<o:p></o:p>To
me, the main issues raised for determination, in this appeal are two in number.
They are:<o:p></o:p>(a)
Whether on the evidence, the respondent-petitioner had capacity, or showed a
Capacity by which the chieftaincy tribunals’ conclusion in favour of the
respondent can be justified or be supported; and<o:p></o:p>(b)
whether the first appellant-respondent to the petition was customarily right to
nominate the queenmother of Bando to ascend the male Krontire stool at a time
she occupies the female stool.<o:p></o:p>This
latter act by the first appellant provoked the present action.<o:p></o:p>It
is not in dispute that the determination of issue (b) is a “cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy” within the language and meaning of section 66 of Act 370
which defines a A cause [sic](1) or matter affecting chie</main>