OPANIN KWAME FRIMPONG AND OBAAPANIN AKOSUA ANANEWAAH vs. AKOSUA NYARKO [1999]DLSC6434

Date	1999-05-19
Suit No.	CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL NO. 4/97
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC6434

EDWARD WIREDU PRESIDING J.S.C.

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ACQUAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.

E.M. EDUSEI FOR THE APPELLANT.

S.K. AMOFA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLSC6434
																																						<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 KWAME FRIMPONG AND OBAAPANIN
AKOSUA ANANEWAAH (PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS) <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AKOSUA NYARKO <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<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. 4/97&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 19TH MAY, 1999.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E.M. EDUSEI 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">

S.K. AMOFA FOR THE 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, PRESIDING, J.S.C.
KPEGAH, J.S.C. ACQUAH, J.S.C. ADJABENG, J.S.C. AND MS. 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>The
matter before us to which this opinion relates is supposed to be an appeal
against an interlocutory order of the Judicial Committee of the National House
of Chiefs. <o:p></o:p>The
main issue raised for consideration by the Court is whether the Petitioners in
this case who are complaining to be aggrieved by that decision have taken all
the necessary steps as required by law to entitle them to a hearing? <o:p></o:p>To
answer the above it must first be appreciated that the right to appeal against
a decision of any lower court is conferred by Statute. In other words the right
to appeal is not inherent in any litigant. It is a right conferred by statute.
In like manner a courts jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal is
provided by statute.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In NYE V. NYE (1957) G.I.R. 78 at page 82 and
83 Akufo-Addo, C.J. (as he then was) had this to say<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"it must be appreciated that there is no
right of appeal in a litigant nor is there an inherent power in any court to
hear an appeal." <o:p></o:p>In
the case of MOORE V. TAGOE 1934 2 W.A.C.A. 43 at 43 - 45 per Lord Atkin write:-
<o:p></o:p>"it
has to be remembered that appeals in this country and elsewhere exist mainly by
statute and unless statutory conditions are fulfilled no jurisdiction is given
to any court of justice to entertain them" Lastly in SANDEMA NAB V.
ASANGALISA 1996 - 97 S.C. S.G.L.R.R. 302 Supreme Court had this to say;— <o:p></o:p>"Now
it must be appreciated that an appeal is a creature of statute ...... where a
right of appeal is conferred as of right or with leave the right is to be
exercised within the four corners of the statute and the relevant procedural
regulations and rules as the court will not have jurisdiction to grant
deviations outside the parameters of the statute." <o:p></o:p>In
the instant case the right to appeal from any decision a decision of the
Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs lies to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction to hear appeals of this nature
statutorily from the 1992 Constitution. The relevant provisions are <o:p></o:p>(a)Article
131(4) which provides that <o:p></o:p>"An
appeal from a decision of the Judicial Committee .of the National House of
Chiefs shall lie to the Supreme Court with the leave of the Judicial Committee
or the Supreme Court. See also <o:p></o:p>(b)
Article 273 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 44 of the Courts Act 459. <o:p></o:p>Quite
apart from the requirements of the Statutory provisions referred to above,
there are also rules and regulations governing the procedure for bringing an
appeal properly before this court. <o:p></o:p>In
the instant case the Supreme Court rules 1996 (C.I. 16) is pertinent. It
provides clear and unambiguous regulations which have to be complied with.
These regulations are of two kinds, those that are fundamental and form the
basic foundation or the subtratum of the appeal and those that can be described
as mere irregularities or technicalities. It is the rules in the former
category which when duly complied with, confer jurisdiction on the court. In
other words this Supreme Court can only be seised with jurisdiction to hear an
appeal when the appellant has fully complied with the former category of rules
of practice which regulate the bringing of an appeal. See Merah vrs. Oknah
(1984-86) 1 GLR 400 at 410. <o:p></o:p>Rules
relevant to the present matter before us are <o:p></o:p>