DANIEL TETTEH NORPEWEJA, KWASI TEYE AND NENE TETTEH ZOGLI II vs. EMMANUEL KWAKU NUERTEY, RAYMOND TERKPER OSANYONGMOR AND REV. SAMUEL NARH OSAKONOR [2014]DLCA4620

DANIEL TETTEH NORPEWEJA, KWASI TEYE AND NENE TETTEH ZOGLI II vs. EMMANUEL KWAKU... [2014]DLCA4620

Date	2014-12-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/16/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA4620

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A.

SOWAH J.A.

ANDREW NYARKO ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS IN PERSON

[2014]DLCA4620
																																						<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" >DANIEL TETTEH NORPEWEJA,
KWASI TEYE AND NENE TETTEH ZOGLI II<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL KWAKU NUERTEY,
RAYMOND TERKPER OSANYONGMOR AND REV. SAMUEL NARH OSAKONOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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">

SUIT
NO: H1/16/2014&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 10TH DECEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANDREW NYARKO 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
IN PERSON <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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ADJEI
J.A. (PRESIDING), LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A., SOWAH 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">

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

</div>SOWAH, J.A:<o:p></o:p>On
22nd January 2014, the High Court Koforidua refused an application
by the defendants/appellants’ to dismiss the writ of summons filed by the plaintiff/respondents'.
Being dissatisfied with the Ruling, the appellants' have filed this
interlocutory appeal,&nbsp; praying that the
ruling of the High Court be set aside and the suit filed by the respondents be
dismissed with heavy cost against respondents. <o:p></o:p>The
background facts which have
culminated in this appeal are as follows: The respondents filed a writ of
summons praying for an Order setting aside an arbitration which was held at the
Tribunal of the Kornor of Manya Krobo in 2009. The subject matter of the
arbitration was a parcel of land. The respondents' alleged that the requirement
of Natural Justice that no man shall be judge in his own cause had been
breached by one of the panel of arbitrators. The appellants entered appearance
and filed a statement of defence in which they averred and contended that the
respondents were members of the Zezeenya clan and were bound by a 1978
arbitration that took place before the Kornor of Manya Krobo’s Arbitration
Tribunal in respect of the same parcel of land. &nbsp;In their Reply, the respondents refuted that
they were bound by the said 1978 arbitration. They averred that neither they
nor any member of their family was a party to that arbitration, and moreover,
the parcel of land which was arbitrated was different from the subject matter
of the present action. <o:p></o:p>Among
the issues filed by the respondent for determination was the issue ‘Whether or not the land which was the
subject-matter of the arbitration in 1978 is the same as the land which was
arbitrated upon in 2009.’ [See pages 13, 14 of the record of appeal]<o:p></o:p>At
the close of pleadings, the appellants filed a motion titled “Motion on Notice to Dismiss plaintiff’s
action for being estopped with their action”. They averred in their
affidavit in support that the respondents were estopped from bringing the
action by the 1978 and 2009 arbitration awards which they exhibited. The
application was opposed by the respondents on the grounds they had averred to
in their pleadings. <o:p></o:p>The
trial judge heard the application and ruled in the following words:&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; <o:p></o:p>“The court has indicated that from the
papers filed it is necessary to go into the matter as the plaintiffs is denying
any knowledge of an arbitration of which they were parties.&nbsp; Since directions have been taken the matter
is adjourned to 26/3/2014 for possible hearing.”<o:p></o:p>It
is this Ruling which is the subject of this interlocutory appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellants filed the following grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>i.