OPOKU vs. NYAMEKYE [1999]DLSC505

Date	1999-07-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC505

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANT

OBENG MANU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1999]DLSC505
																																						<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">OPOKU<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">NYAMEKYE<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 653<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>JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

OBENG MANU FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENTS OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment of the chieftaincy committee
of the National House of Chiefs wherein nananom reversed the judgment of the
Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs and thereby affirmed the judgment of the
Kumasi Traditional Council. The appellant will hereinafter be called the
plaintiff and the respondent the defendant.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff by the oath procedure swore that: “The defendant is
not to the Krobo stool and therefore he (the defendant) is not eligible to the
Krobo stool and that the defendant is eligible only to the Benkum stool of
Krobo.” The defendant also swore back in reply that: “He being the Krobohene
elect and also a royal to the Krobo Stool is eligible to the Krobo stool in
view of his ancestral link to the stool.”<o:p></o:p>Upon the issues joined, the judicial committee of the Kumasi
Traditional Council by a majority gave judgment for the defendant. The
plaintiff appealed from that decision to the judicial committee of the Ashanti
Regional House of Chiefs. The regional house of chiefs reversed the traditional
council. On a further appeal to the chieftaincy committee of the National House
of Chiefs, nananom also reversed the decision of the chieftaincy tribunal of
the regional house of chiefs. This court subsequently granted the plaintiff
leave to appeal, to it. Before us the plaintiff has filed five grounds of
appeal, four of which are substantive grounds. The plaintiff contends that:<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">“(i) The judgment is against the weight of evidence. <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) The National House of Chiefs misconceived its functions as a
second appellate tribunal, and erred in law in failing to give any or due
weight to the unrebutted evidence that the name of the Krobo stool was ‘Gyamera
Bensua’ Stool. <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">(iii) The National House of Chiefs erred in law when it purported
to make findings without considering the evidence of the plaintiff-appellant
and her witnesses. <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">(iv) The National House of Chiefs erred in law when it held that a
matrilineal stool could be created for two friends of different clans.”<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s counsel in his statement of case contends that:<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">“In this case, having conceded, as the respondent did, that the
obaapanin’s family is a royal the presumption is that this status is exclusive
and the burden falls on the respondent to establish satisfactorily how his
family also became a royal house. This was really the nature of the dispute ...
“<o:p></o:p>When the plaintiff’s counsel’s submission is conjoined with the
finding of Nananom of the National House of Chiefs that: “The only points in
favour of the respondent (plaintiff) are the customs raised by the Ashanti
Regional House of Chiefs. . .” then certainly nananom were in agreement with
their august colleagues in the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs about the
declared Ashanti custom which they declared. Nananom chose one single custom
for their strictures. In the quotation from their judgment just quoted above,
nananom continued:<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">“And we hold the view that the naming of the stool could be due to
factors other than the fact that it was named after the one who founded it or
its first occupant the evidence yields itself to this conclusion.”<o:p></o:p>With the greatest respect to nananom,</main>