THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOUR CHURCH vs. KOFI ELIAS ASANTE & OTHERS [2004]DLCA6603

Date	2004-03-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/30/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6603

TWUMASI J.A

. ANSAH J.A.

OWUSU-ANSAH J.A.

PHILIPPA DENNIS—FOR APPELLANTS

THADDEUS SORY WITH MAJ. RTD ALBERT JON-CHEBE—FOR RESPONDENT.

[2004]DLCA6603
																																						<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" >THE
REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOUR CHURCH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOFI ELIAS
ASANTE &amp; OTHERS<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/30/2004&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: 26TH
MARCH, 2004<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">THADDEUS SORY WITH MAJ.
RTD ALBERT JON-CHEBE—FOR RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">TWUMASI J.A. ANSAH J.A.
AND OWUSU-ANSAH J.A.<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">

</div>ANSAH
J.A <o:p></o:p>This
appeal epitomises how disagreement over what should be seen as a simple matter
can degenerate and overgrow its limits and attempt to disintegrate a whole
church of God. It was six suits that were consolidated for hearing. It was
apparent that at the trial there was no let or go; no quarters were asked for
and none was given. A church that had enjoyed peace and tranquility during the
days of its founder and his immediate successor, suddenly found itself
embroiled in a multi-faceted dispute. The record of proceedings alone spanned
four hefty volumes and I wonder where the trial would have been by now had it
been conducted and held in an ordinary court where proceedings are manually
recorded. When the trial concluded finally hopes were that the parties would
accept the verdict in the best of faith and leave matters in the hands of He
whom they have known, trusted and believed, but the losing side has launched an
appeal against it. Well, they may be exercising their legal rights in a court
of law hoping that their cause might be vindicated and justice done to them in
accordance with the laws of the land. <o:p></o:p>The
appeal has a respected history. It was that between July, 1998 and April, 2002,
the Saviour Church mounted series of actions against the appellants after the
death of Mr. Isaac Kwadwo Asirifi also known in his lifetime as 'Dadeako', the
General Superintendent of the Church. The bone of contention between the
parties was over who should be held the proper General Superintendent of the
Church, and also whether or not a faction had seceded from the main Church to
found its own, and thirdly whether if there was in fact a secession, the
break-away group could maintain ownership of properties of the Church as their
own. <o:p></o:p>The
issues settled for trial were: <o:p></o:p>"1. Whether the plaintiffs are
the Registered Trustees of the Saviour Church of Ghana <o:p></o:p>2. Whether the various church missions
comprising the Land, Compound, Places of Worship, equipment and all
paraphernalia for worship are the property of the Saviour Church of Ghana. <o:p></o:p>3. Whether the defendants have set up
their own rival church with its headquarters at Mankrong Junction in the
Central Region. <o:p></o:p>4. Whether defendants are entitled to
live on and worship at the various compounds of the Saviour Church of Ghana and
use or keep possession of the church's facilities as of right." <o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found from the welter of evidence
before him, inter alia, that: <o:p></o:p>1.
The parties had for some time been acting under two different General Superintendents.
The plaintiffs and the defendants accepted the leadership of Abraham Kwaku
Edusei and Kwaku Elia Asante, a son of Isaac Asirifi, the late General
Superintendent, respectively. <o:p></o:p>2.
There was only one and true Saviour Church of Ghana and that was the respondent
Church. <o:p></o:p>3.
The appellants had seceded from this one true Saviour Church, in consequence of
which the judge ordered the breakaway faction to return all properties
belonging to that church, as their continued retention was wrongful. <o:p></o:p>4.
The appellants were restrained from worshipping in all places belonging to the
Saviour Church. <o:p></o:p>5.
The appellants had acquired interests on the properties of the Saviour Church
that could not be disregarded and therefore they could retain, possess and enjoy
them 'subject to good behaviour' <o:p></o:p></p</main>