OPANIN KOFI NYAME vs. OSEI KESE, ALIAS KWAME AND YAA KUNE, ALIAS YAA FOSUWAA [1999]DLSC6433

Date	1999-02-10
Suit No.	CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL NO. 1/97
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC6433

EDWARD WIREDU J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ACQUAH J.S.C.

AKUFFO J.S.C.

PAAPA DADSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

ASARE BEDIAKO FOR RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLSC6433
																																						<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" >OPANIN KOFI NYAME<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT) <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OSEI KESE, ALIAS KWAME AND YAA KUNE, ALIAS YAA FOSUWAA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CHIEFTAINCY
APPEAL NO. 1/97&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 10TH FEBRUARY, 1999.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

PAAPA DADSON FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

ASARE BEDIAKO FOR RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C. (PRESIDING)
KPEGAH, J.S.C. ADJABENG, J.S.C. ACQUAH, J.S.C. AND AKUFFO, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>EDWARD
WIREDU, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>This
opinion is a concurring contribution to the able and erudite opinion about to
be read by my brother Acquah, J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>The
principle of res judicata is now a well established and acceptable principle in
judicial proceedings. Its objective is to prevent an abuse of the courts
process by estopping a party to a litigation against whom a court of competent
jurisdiction has already determined the issue now being raised by re-opening
the same subject matter for further litigation. The principle can also be
raised against privies of the original parties. <o:p></o:p>Since
its objective is to prevent an abuse of the courts process there is no need to
go into the exercise of hearing the whole evidence on the matter again,
otherwise its purpose would be defeated. <o:p></o:p>It
can legitimately be determined on an affidavit evidence in appropriate
circumstances. Where it is necessary to go into the matter by hearing evidence,
such evidence must be restricted to that issue only as a preliminary issue. <o:p></o:p>Practice
and procedure rules permit this and the plea must be specifically pleaded. (See
order 25 rules 1, 2 and 4 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of 1954) to
entitle a party to take advantage of it. <o:p></o:p>It
is now also established as trite law that where a party to a suit admits the
existence of an arbitration, the award of which had gone against him the issue
of estoppel per rem judicatam can be raised to estop him from re-opening the
subject-matter of the arbitration unless he is able to establish the invalidity
of the award and in such a situation the validity or otherwise of the award
must be determined as a preliminary issue. <o:p></o:p>In
the instant appeal the trial Chieftaincy Tribunal dealt with the issue of res
judicata as a preliminary issue and in addition to the affidavit evidence took
oral evidence also to resolve that issue. This course was legitimate. The trial
Tribunal after taking oral evidence from both sides, held that the issue had
been determined and that the case was one in which the appellants were estopped
per rem judicatam from re-opening the same subject-matter again. <o:p></o:p>The
trial Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the appellants petition.<o:p></o:p>KPEGAH,
J.S.C <o:p></o:p>I
had wanted to consider the philosophical underpinings of a plea of RES JUDICATA. But considering the
manner the concept had been dealt with in the leading and supporting judgments,
any further excursion to this area by me will be an academic exercises only
which will add nothing substantial to the quality of views already expressed. I
agree that the appeal be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>ACQUAH,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>My
Lords, the plea of res judicata is never a technical plea. It is part of our
received law by which a final judgment rendered by a judicial tribunal of
competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and their privies and as to them constitutes an absolute bar to a
subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. In
Spencer-Bower and Turner's book Res Judicata (2nd ed.) at page 9 paragraph 9,
the plea is explained thus: <o:p></o:p>"Where
a final decision has been pronounced by a .... a judicial tribunal of competent
jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of the litigation, any
party or privy to such litigation, as against any other party or privy thereto
... is estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing or questioning such
decision on the merits whether it be used as the foundation of an action or
relied upon as a bar to any claim." <o:p></o:p>As
to how far interlocutory judgments can give rise to a successful plea of res
judicata, one has to distinguish between judgments by defaults (of appearance
or defence) and summary judgmen</main>