NANA BUKWEI TAKYI vs. OPANYIN KWAKU SAKYI SUB. OPANYIN ATTA PANYIN [2013]DLCA8116

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/08/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8116

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A.

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

MR. J.A DAWSON ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. JOSEPH NICHOLAS NKRUMAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA8116
																																						<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 BUKWEI TAKYI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OPANYIN KWAKU SAKYI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>SUB. OPANYIN ATTA PANYIN<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO: H1/08/2012&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: 21ST MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
J.A DAWSON ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
JOSEPH NICHOLAS NKRUMAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
J.A. (PRESIDING), ADJEI J.A., ACKAH-YENSU 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent issued a writ in the High Court, Cape Coast to set aside
the judgment which was determined by the Judicial Committee of the Regional
House of Chiefs and affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the National House of
Chiefs and the Supreme Court. On 7th July 1987, the Judicial Committee of the
Central Region House of Chiefs by a majority decision inter alia, declared the
enstoolment of the Respondent therein as null and void. The respondent therein
is the plaintiff/respondent in this appeal. The decision of the Judicial
Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs was affirmed by the Judicial
Committee of the National House of Chiefs on 8th May, 1991. On 17th
February 1999, the Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the National House of Chiefs. Some few months after the Supreme Court
had delivered its judgment in that chieftaincy matter; the plaintiff herein
filed a writ at the High Court to set aside the majority judgment of the
Central Region House of Chiefs and the unanimous judgments of the National
House of Chiefs and the Supreme Court. The substance of the plaintiff’s&nbsp; action&nbsp;
was that&nbsp; the action&nbsp; should&nbsp;
have been commenced at the Judicial Committee of the&nbsp; Eguafo Traditional Council and not the&nbsp; Judicial committee of the Central Region of
House of Chiefs and the wrong forum renders the proceedings and all&nbsp; the judgments founded on them null and void.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/appellant herein resisted the plaintiff’s action. Before the defendant
could file his statement of defence within the time prescribed by law, the plaintiff
had filed a motion under 25 rule 2 and 3 of the repealed High Court rules LN
140 A to set down the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Judicial
Committee of the Central House of Chiefs for legal argument. The defendant
resisted the procedure but he was overruled by the trial High Court Judge. On
15th &nbsp;May,2000, the trial High
Court judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff and held&nbsp; that the Judicial&nbsp; Committee of the Central Region House of
chiefs which&nbsp; exercised &nbsp;original&nbsp;
jurisdiction in the&nbsp; matter &nbsp;lacked&nbsp;
jurisdiction and its judgment as well as that&nbsp; of the National House of Chiefs and the
Supreme Court which affirmed same were null and void.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant filed his Notice of Appeal on 22nd May, 2000 and set down five
(5) grounds. The grounds of appeal are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In as
much as the plaintiff/respondent claim that she is the chief of Bando and the Krontihene
of Eguafo Traditional Area, in which&nbsp;
said capacity&nbsp; she instituted this
action, was&nbsp; denied by the&nbsp; defendant/appellant the Judge of the&nbsp; court below erred&nbsp; in law in proceeding to pronounce upon&nbsp; the merits of the plaintiff/respondent’s&nbsp; claim&nbsp;
in this&nbsp; suit notwithstanding that
the defendant/appellant’s &nbsp;challenge to
the capacity in which the&nbsp;
plaintiff/respondent instituted this suit was not determined.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel
for the defendant/appellant having intimated in his written address to the
court that the court must first decide the issue of the plaintiff/respondent’s
capacity to institute the action before the plaintiff/respondent’s application
setting down the issue raised in the statement of claim is pronounced upon and
that until the issue of capacity is resolved he will not address the court on
behalf of the defendant/appellant on the merits&nbsp;
of the&nbsp; plaintiff/respondent’s
substantive &nbsp;claim, the learned judge &nbsp;of the High&nbsp;
court contravened the rules&nbsp; of
natural justice when he proceeded to rule&nbsp;
upon the merits of the plaintiff/respondent claim without giving counsel
for the defendant/appellant the opportunity to&nbsp;
respond to the address previously made by counsel for the plaintiff/respondent
on the application setting&nbsp; down issues
for legal argument.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
manner in which the court below dealt with the case was most unsatisfactory,
irregular and led to a substantial miscarriage</main>