NANA ADWOA EFFIA AND GODFRED KWOFIE vs. NANA TAIBA II AND OTHERS [2012]DLSC6422

Date	2012-05-22
Suit No.	CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL J2/1/2009
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC6422

WOOD (MRS) C.J (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C

DOTSE J.S.C

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS JOSEPH

A. DAWSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLSC6422
																																						<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 ADWOA EFFIA AND GODFRED KWOFIE<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/
APPELLATS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA TAIBA II AND
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS)<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 J2/1/2009&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: 22ND MAY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

SIR DENNIS ADJEI FOR THE
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS JOSEPH A. DAWSON FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS<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) C.J (PRESIDING) ANSAH,
J.S.C DOTSE, J.S.C ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C AND BAFFOE-BONNIE, 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>WOOD
(MRS) C.J: <o:p></o:p>On
the 25th of October, 2007, the Judicial Committee of the National House of
Chiefs dismissed the appeal from the adjudicating body of the Western Regional
House of Chiefs, that is’ the Judicial Committee of the House. Dissatisfied,
the petitioners/appellants are, by way of an appeal to this court, challenging
the said decision on the following grounds: GROUNDS OF APPEAL <o:p></o:p>“1.
The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs erred when they relied
on extraneous matters which did not form part of the record of Appeal to
deliver their judgment. <o:p></o:p>2.
The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs erred when they held
that the Petitioners/Appellants herein cannot maintain the present action as
their family member had sometime ago instituted an action against some of the
Respondents herein and they should go to the Judicial committee of the Regional
House of Chiefs to continue with the hearing of the matter. <o:p></o:p>3.
The Judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs erred when they affirmed
the position taken by the Judicial committee of the Regional House of Chiefs
that failing to file reply constitutes an admission of the averments contained
in the statement of Defence. <o:p></o:p>4.
The Judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs erred by affirming the
wrong procedure adopted by the Respondents by allowing the Respondents to
orally raise a preliminary objection to the competence of the petitioners
action. <o:p></o:p>5.
The judgment is against the weight of evidence on record.” <o:p></o:p>The
facts which triggered the original action before the Judicial Committee of the
Western Regional House are not at all complex. On the 20th of April 2000, the
appellants filed a petition against the Respondents before this body for the
following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>“A)
A declaration that the petitioners are the owners and Kingmakers of the Royal
Sewuah Paramount Stool of Bamiankor. <o:p></o:p>B)
A declaration that the purported nomination, election and enstoolment of Henry
Acquah a.k.a. Angama Tu Agyan without the knowledge, consent and authorization
of the Petitioners is null and void and therefore a nullity. <o:p></o:p>C)
An injunction restraining the Respondents from nominating, electing or
enstooling any person as Omanhene of the Paramount Stool of Bamiankor. <o:p></o:p>D)
An injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from holding himself out as
Omanhene of Gwira Traditional Area or performing the functions associated with
that effect.” <o:p></o:p>The
Respondent entered conditional appearance, on the 4th of May 2000, a step the
appellant contends is clearly unwarranted by the procedural rules governing
judicial proceedings before the Committees of the Houses of Chiefs. They did
not take any of the known legal steps which ordinarily should follow the entry
of conditional appearance or appearance under protest as it is alternatively
known, and filed a statement of defence on the19th of April. <o:p></o:p>As
happens to be the norm for parties who have filed for permanent injunctions,
the appellants additionally filed a motion for an order of interim injunction.
It was at the hearing of the interlocutory application, when no memorandum of
agreed issues has been set down for hearing, that the respondent successfully
raised an oral preliminary objection challenging the competency of the petition
on the grounds of lis alibi pendence. Their case was that an action for similar
reliefs was pending before the same forum thus making the instant action
legally incompetent. The appellants unsuccessfully opposed the oral objection;
by not only denying the claim of alibi pendence, but roundly condemning the
practice and procedure by which the preliminary legal point was brought before
the tribunal. They argued strenuously that the application to have the action
dismissed in limine ought to have come by way of a motion on notice strictly
disposed of without resort to any other extraneous matters. <o:p></o:p>The
Ground 4 of appeal therefore raises the issue of whether the preli</main>