GARIBA DINTIE AND 6 OTHERS vs. LURIWIE KANTON IV AND 5 OTHERS [2008]DLSC6407

Date	2008-06-18
Suit No.	CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL NO. J3/2006
Citation No.	[2008]DLSC6407

WOOD (MRS) (PRESIDING)

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYRA (MRS) J.S.C.

E.K. MUSA FOR APPELLANT

LUGUTERAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2008]DLSC6407
																																						<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" >GARIBA DINTIE AND 6 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(PETITIONERS/RESP./RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LURIWIE KANTON IV AND 5 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELL./APPELLANTS)<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. J3/2006&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: 18TH JUNE 2008.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E.K. MUSA FOR 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">

LUGUTERAH 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">

WOOD (MRS) (PRESIDING), KPEGAH J.S.C.,
ATUGUBA J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYRA (MRS) 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>ANSAH,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the National House of Chiefs delivered on
17th September 2004, affirming the judgment of the Upper West House of Chiefs. <o:p></o:p>Before
dealing with the grounds of appeal, it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary
objection by the respondent. The grounds of objection were that the reply by
the appellant was not worthy of that name for it was contrary to Rule 15(5) of
CI 16, and was a second bite, re-arguments or a continuation of the address
already submitted. In response, the appellant maintained the reply conformed to
the legal requirements in the Rule (15(5). The appellant further explained, the
reply firstly, pointed out that this appeal was not against the decision by the
Sissala Traditional Council as submitted erroneously by the respondent and also
that the NHC based its decision without reference to the parties before it.
Rules 15 (5) and (6) referred to by both sides were as follow: <o:p></o:p>“(5)
The appellant may within fourteen days of the service on him of the
respondent’s statement of case, file with the Registrar a reply to the
respondent’s statement of case”. <o:p></o:p>I
think the preliminary objection must be dismissed as misconceived, for if read
properly, it was obvious the Reply by the appellant did satisfy the essentials
of the rules of the Supreme Court for it was based on additional grounds 5 and
6 of appeal and the statement of case by the respondent. <o:p></o:p>At
any rate, this appeal must not be decided on points as technical as were raised
in the preliminary objection, but on the merits. Having dismissed the objection
we can now proceed to determine the appeal on its merits. It must be asked what
the facts of this case were. <o:p></o:p>They
were that in 1982, one Bayua Doho filed a petition entitled Bayua Doho v Dakui Kujeke
before the Judicial Committee of the Sissala Confederacy Traditional Council
for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>“1
A declaration that Bayua Doho is the rightful Chief of Nabugubelle, and <o:p></o:p>2
The purported enskinment of Dakui Kujeke as chief of Nabugubelle by Bujan Kuoro
be declared null and void.” <o:p></o:p>Dakui
Kujeke also counterclaimed for the orders that: <o:p></o:p>“(a)
his enskinment should be confirmed rightful and he be declared the legitimate
chief of Nabugubelle. <o:p></o:p>(b)
that the Judicial Committee should confirm the existence of four gates in
Nabugubelle and also confirm that he Dakui Kujeke is qualified to contest for
the vacant skin of Nabugubelle.” <o:p></o:p>On
1-3-84, the trial Judicial Committee made its findings of facts, granted the
petition and made certain consequential orders in the following terms: <o:p></o:p>“We
accordingly declare null and void the purported election and enskinment of
defendant as Nabugubelle Kuoro and order as follows: <o:p></o:p>“1 That the Registrar of the Sissala
Confederacy Traditional Council conducts an election involving all male ratable
adult citizens of Nabugubelle village and who have paid their basic rates for
the 1983 fiscal year, for the purpose of voting and enskinning a Nabugubelle
Kuoro/Chief within 30 days from the date of the said order. 2 That irrespective
of the election now ordered in this particular case, a suitable candidate from
the Nagberijan section of Nabugubelle shall occupy the skin in the event of
future vacancy in the skin.” <o:p></o:p>I
hereafter call this the 1984 judgment, the sheet anchor of the dispute before
the Upper West Regional House of Chiefs (UWRHC) and in this appeal. <o:p></o:p>