PEKI STOOL vs. TSITO AWUDOME STOOL [2003]DLHC1011

Date	2003-06-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2003]DLHC1011

TWENEBOA-KODUA J

JAMES AHENKORAH (WITH HIM JEAN MAURELLENT) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

YAW OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[2003]DLHC1011
																																						<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">PEKI STOOL<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">TSITO AWUDOME STOOL<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 28<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 (WITH HIM JEAN MAURELLENT) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

YAW
OPOKU ADJAYE FOR THE DEFENDANTS. <o:p></o:p>

TWENEBOA-KODUA
J<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Tweneboa-Kodua J.
The dispute between the two eminent stools in the Volta Region of Ghana started
off in the Local Court B, Peki some 46 years ago. It was shortly transferred to
the High Court, Ho. The first lap of litigation attending the boundary dispute
ended up in the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>That
was not the last time the dispute reached the august forum. The Supreme Court
ordered the transfer of the dispute to the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commissioner for determination because the dispute was found to centre around
stool land boundaries.<o:p></o:p>The
honourable commissioner diligently pursued the trial. The dispute however
returned to the Supreme Court. One of the contesting stools sought an order of
prohibition to stop the trial.<o:p></o:p>The
application for the prerogative order was founded on a statute enacted in
October 2000. By the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement (Repeal) Act, 2000 (Act
587), the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1973 (NRCD 172) was
repealed. The commissioner was accordingly divested of jurisdiction. The dispute
herein was, inter alia, transferred to the High Court with the effluxion of
eight months and it took an order of the Supreme Court to get the enforcement
of the statute. In other words, the Supreme Court handed down an order of
prohibition to stop the trial by the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commissioner. Set against the foregoing which is a small part of the entire
background of the Peki Tsito dispute, it is an under-statement to say that the
dispute has a chequered history.<o:p></o:p>The
earliest issue that has sparked off controversy is whether or not to adopt the
proceedings at the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission. Whilst the
Peki stool favours the adoption of the proceedings, the Tsito-Awudome stool
disagrees with or disapproves of it. When the issue came up for consideration,
leading counsel for the Peki stool adverted to “the proceedings that had
already taken place before the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission.”
He then drew attention to and underscored the evidence as part of the
proceedings in question<o:p></o:p>He
next turned to section 3(1) of Act 587 which is as follows: “Subject to
subsection (2) all cases and proceedings pending before the Commissioner
immediately before the coming into force of this Act are by this Act
transferred to the High Court.” Against the background of the foregoing
provision, counsel distinguished “all cases and proceedings pending before the
commissioner” under Act 587 from other cases simpliciter under any enactment or
enactments.<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel adverted to the case of Boamah v Okyere [1967] GLR 548 which counsel ex
altera parte had indicated as the solid authority f</main>