YAKUBU SEIDU vs. K. ADAMA [2005]DLSC2415

Date	2005-06-15
Suit No.	CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL NO. 1/2002
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC2415

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

WOOD (MRS) J.S.C

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C

PROF. OCRAN J.S.C

ANINAKWAH J.S.C.

MR. W.A.N ADUMOAH BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

MR. THADEUS SORY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2005]DLSC2415
																																						<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" >YAKUBU SEIDU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>K. ADAMA<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CHIEFTAINCY
APPEAL NO. 1/2002<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: 15TH JUNE, 2005.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
W.A.N ADUMOAH BOSSMAN 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">

MR.
THADEUS SORY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

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

AKUFFO
(MS), J.S.C. (PRESIDING), WOOD, (MRS), J.S.C., DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C., PROF.
OCRAN, J.S.C., ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>J U D G M E N T<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C:&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an appeal from a judgment of the
Judicial<o:p></o:p>Commitee
of the National House of Chiefs delivered on 21st January 2002. That judgment
upheld the judgment of the trial Judicial Committee of the Upper West Region
House of Chiefs in favour of the PetitionerlRespondent/Respondent who is&nbsp; hereafter referred to as the Petitioner and
is a Prince of the Wala Traditional Area and was held by the trial Judicial
Committee to be the Guli-Na, one of the Divisional Chiefs of the Wala
Traditional Area. These two judgments make the same findings of fact. Where
there are such concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, it is always an
uphill battle for an appellant before this Court to reverse those findings of
fact.<o:p></o:p>As
Date-Bah, J.S.C. indicated recently in the unreported case of Wood and Ors v
Oxyair and Anor (Unreported judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 27th April
2005, Case No. J4/35/2005):<o:p></o:p>"Where
there are concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, an appellate court
is usually reluctant to reverse that finding of fact, unless there are
compelling reasons so to do. (See, for instance, Lord Russell's judgment in the
Privy Council decision of Bassayin and Achah v Bendentu II (1937) 5 W.A.C.A. 1,
especially at pp. 2-3. In the more recent case of Achoro &amp; Anor v Akanfela
&amp; Anor [1996-97] SCGLR 209, Acquah JSC, as he then was, had this to say, at
p. 214, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court:<o:p></o:p>"Now in an appeal against
findings of facts to a second appellate court like this court, where the lower
appellate court had concurred in the findings of the trial court, especially in
a dispute, the subject-matter of which is peculiarly within the bosom of the
two lower courts or tribunals, this court will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of the lower courts unless it is established with absolute
clearness that some blunder or error resulting in a miscarriage of justice, is
apparent in the way in which the lower tribunals dealt with the facts."<o:p></o:p>The
decision of the Review Panel of the Supreme Court in Koglex Ltd (No.2) v Field
[2000] SCGLR 175 is to a similar effect.)"<o:p></o:p>It
is thus within this context of case law, that this Court is to re-hear this
case by way of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case are as follows: an election took place on 20th April 1998 at
the Princes' Grounds at the Wa Na's Palace in Wa, in the Upper West Region. The
election was by the seven Kingmakers of the Wala traditional State, consisting
of: one representative each of the 4 gates or Divisional chiefdoms of the Wala
State; and representatives of the Froko; the Tendaana and the Yeri Na. The four
Divisions or gates&nbsp; are: Yijihi;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Najeri;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jonyoubi&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Nakpaha.&nbsp; The&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Second
Respondent/Appellant/Appellant, the late Mr. B. K. Adama, who will be
subsequently referred to as the Second Respondent, conducted the affairs of the
election meeting, in his capacity as the most senior Prince. The Second
Respondent died before the appeal before this Court could be heard and Alhaji
Issah Bukari has been substituted for him, by an order of this Court dated
11th&nbsp; February 2004.<o:p></o:p>At
the election meeting, the Second Respondent invited all contestants to the
vacant Wa skin to identify themselves, whereupon the Petitioner and the First
Respondent/Appellant/ Appellant, subsequently referred to in this judgment as
the First Respondent, identified themselves. The Petitioner and the First
Respondent both made a presentation to the meeting of their
"manifesto", setting out the reasons why they should be elected to
the vacant skin of Wa. In his presentation, the Petitioner averred that he had
reminded the meeting that in 1951 during the reign of Wa Na Mumuni Koray of
Jonyuobi, the Wala Traditional Council had decided and resolved that there were
four gates to the Wa Paramountcy and that since that declaration by the
Traditional Council in 1951 only the Nakpaha gate had not had its turn in providing
a chief for Wa. He contended therefore that, in fairness, it was now the turn
of the Nakpaha gate to present a candidate to the vacant Wa skin.<o:p></o:p>After
the presentations by the candidates, the Kingmakers retired into an inner room.
At this point, the Froko, Alhaji Iddrisu, delegated his brother (Hamaru Froko)
to act for him in the proceedings in the inner room.<o:p></o:p>The
central controversy in this case revolves round what took place in the inner
room. The Petitioner averred that in the inner room he was elected by the
Tendaana and this was concurred in by the Yeri Na and Froko. He further averred
that the Tendaana made it plain that his election of the Petitioner was based
on the fact that it was now the turn of Nakpaha gate's nominee to be elected Wa
Na in the interest of fairness. The Petitioner's contention was that, since he
was the nominee of Nakpaha Gate and had their vote, in addition to the three
other Kingmakers already referred to, he had the majority support of the
Kingmakers. The Petitioner claimed that he emerged from the inner room to where
the observers of the election were seated and clapped his hands and started
jubilating. The Tendaana also came out and made the declaration that the
Petitioner had been chosen as Wa Na.<o:p></o:p>Next,
according to the Petitioner, to his utter shock and disbelief, the Second
Respondent announced to the observers that five of the Kingmakers had elected
the Busa Na, who had, in turn, transferred his election to the First Respondent
and that the Second Respondent had further announced that two </main>