NANA KWAKU AMOFAH & 14 ORS. vs. NANA OWUSU-AKYEAW BREMPONG II OMANHENE OF ATEBUBU [2001]DLSC2369

NANA KWAKU AMOFAH & 14 ORS. vs. NANA OWUSU-AKYEAW BREMPONG II OMANHENE OF ATEBUB... [2001]DLSC2369

Date	2001-05-16
Suit No.	C.A. NO. 3/99.
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC2369

AMPIAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C

LAMPTEY J.S.C

ADZOE J.S.C.

MR. CHARLES AGBANU FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

MR. G. OSAFO-OSEI FOR THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS.

[2001]DLSC2369
																																						<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" >NANA KWAKU AMOFAH &amp; 14 ORS.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA OWUSU-AKYEAW BREMPONG II OMANHENE OF ATEBUBU<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>C.A.
NO. 3/99.<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">

DATE:
16th May 2001.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR.
CHARLES AGBANU FOR THE RESPONDENT/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">

MR.
G. OSAFO-OSEI FOR THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

AMPIAH,
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ATUGUBA, J.S.C., MS. AKUFFO, J.S.C., LAMPTEY, J.S.C.,
ADZOE, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>AMPIAH, J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the decision of
the National House of Chiefs. On 3rd February, 1989, the
Petitioners/Respondents herein (some of whom are admitted to be kingmakers of
the Owusu-Asare Paramount Stool of Atebubu) petitioned the Brong-Ahafo Regional
House of Chiefs for the removal of the Respondent/Appellant herein as the
Omanhene (Paramount Chief) of the Atebubu Traditional Area. They sought —<o:p></o:p>"1. A declaration that the Respondent herein as occupant of
Owusu-Asare Stool '(Atebubu Paramount Stool) has violated customs and taboos of
Atebubu' which violations render him liable to be destooled in accordance with
Atebubu Customary Law and Usage.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp; An order of destoolment of the Respondent herein Nana
Owusu Akyeaw Brempong II as Omanhene of Atebubu".<o:p></o:p>In all, twelve (12) charges were
preferred against the Respondent. On these charges, the Petitioners led
evidence and called witnesses in support. They concluded that the Respondent,
"does not heed the advice of the kingmakers. He does what pleases him. He
has not been observing our custom. The Respondent's behaviour has led to
quarrels and tribulations throughout the Atebubu Traditional Area" and
must therefore be removed.<o:p></o:p>The Judicial Committee of the
Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs found the Respondent/Appellant herein
guilty on two of the charges and ordered his destoolment. The Respondent
appealed to the National House of Chiefs which dismissed his appeal and
affirmed the decision of the lower tribunal. It is against this decision that
this appeal has been brought.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent filed as many as seven
(7) grounds of appeal some of which dealt with the cost awarded and a charge which
no longer exists. In its decision, the Regional House of Chiefs concluded, <o:p></o:p>"The Defendant committed a destoolable offence when he
entered the Stool House of Atoobi Kofi in November, 1987. The misappropriation
of Car No. GK 1990 by the Defendant and the inability of the Defendant to
either produce the missing items listed in Exhibit 'A' or give a reasonable
explanation as to their whereabouts are also matters for which he can be
destooled. We accordingly declare that the Defendant has committed offences for
which the Petitioners are entitled to destool him under Atebubu Customary
Law..."<o:p></o:p>On 9th July, 1997 this Court allowed an
appeal by the Respondent in respect of the charge in connection with the
Mercedes Benz Saloon Car No. GK 1990 of which the trial tribunal had held that
the Respondent had misappropriated. (See Brempong II vrs. The Republic
(1996-97) SC GLR 267 at 627). Counsel for the Petitioners submitted quite
rightly that "...the Respondents will therefore be limited to the only
charge now standing against the Appellant i.e. violation of customs and taboos
of Atebubu by entering the Stool House of the Asasewura against the advice and
protests of his divisional chiefs during a festival in 1987".<o:p></o:p>Accordingly, I think this case can be
disposed of on the ground, whether or not there was evidence in support of the
charge; in other words whether or not the judgment was against the weight of
evidence.<o:p></o:p>It may be argued that this Court should
not disturb concurrent findings of fact made by the lower tribunals. But in
Achoro &amp; Anor. vrs. Akanfela &amp; Anor. ([1996-97] SC GLR 209) the Supreme
Court held among others that,<o:p></o:p>"in an appeal against findings of facts to a second appellate
court like.. (the Supreme Court), where the lower appellate court had concurred
in the findings of the trial court, especially in a dispute, the subject-matter
of which was peculiarly within the bosom of the two lower courts or tribunals,
this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lo</main>