ALHAJI ISSAH BUKAR, GBETOR NAA (DECEASED) AND NAA MUMUNI SAAKA, SING NAA (DEC’D), KULK-PONG, SING NAA. vs. MAHAMA BAYONG OF SUYIRI

ALHAJI ISSAH BUKAR, GBETOR NAA (DECEASED) AND NAA MUMUNI SAAKA, SING NAA (DEC’D)... [2014]DLSC4482

Date	2014-05-21
Suit No.	CHIEFTANCY APPEAL: NO.J2/1/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4482

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

DOTSE

J.S.C.

YEBOAH J.S.C.

AKAMBA J.S.C.

MR. ANANFURI JUSTICE SEIDU FOR PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS /APPELLANTS.

ANTHONY NAMOO WITH HIM ODOOM MENSAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2014]DLSC4482
																																						<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" >ALHAJI ISSAH BUKAR,
GBETOR NAA (DECEASED) AND NAA MUMUNI SAAKA, SING NAA (DEC’D), KULK-PONG, SING
NAA.<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAHAMA BAYONG OF SUYIRI
– WA AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CHIEFTANCY APPEAL: NO.J2/1/2013&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 MAY 2014<o:p></o:p>

ANTHONY
NAMOO WITH HIM ODOOM MENSAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKAMBA, JSC;-<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the decision of Judicial Committee of the National House of
Chiefs (herein after simply NHC) which affirmed an earlier decision by the
Judicial Committee of the Upper West Regional House of chiefs (simply referred
to as UWRHC) against the petitioners/appellants/appellants herein in a dispute
over who is the appropriate person under customary law of the Wala Traditional
area to convene a meeting for the nomination and election of a Wa-Na.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This
chieftaincy dispute is one of the numerous such disputes that have plagued the
Northern parts of our dear country over the years with the unpleasant
consequence of sapping the energies and resources of whole communities which
could have been spent in productive ventures. This case commenced by petition
at the UWRHC in 2007. In between the time of filing in 2007 and the present
appeal before us this 2014 what has been dissipated in the nature of financial
resources and man hours, not to speak of the level of disunity in leadership,
is anybody’s guess.&nbsp; The saddening part
of the whole matter is the narrowness of the issue that has brought the parties
this far. It is hoped that traditional councils all over the country will
follow the example of the few councils that have documented their customary practices
and resort to documentation thereof rather than reliance upon oral traditions
which are easily lost or forgotten. This is not to suggest that codification or
documentation will completely eradicate disputes but will make for ease of
resolution of them.<o:p></o:p>BRIEF FACTS<o:p></o:p>In
this presentation the petitioners/appellants/appellants would be referred to
simply as the appellant/s whilst the respondents/respondents/respondents would
be referred to as the respondent/s.<o:p></o:p>On
3rd September 2006 Wa Naa, Naa Yakubu Seidu Soalle II passed on. A vacancy was
thus created in the Wa Paramount skin. In order to fill this vacant traditional
position, the 1st respondent in his capacity as Tindana/Widana of Wa and
purported lead kingmaker, invited other Kingmakers of the Wa Paramouncy to a
meeting for the purpose of nominating and electing a new Wa Naa. The meeting
took place on 19th January 2007 and attended by five out of the seven
recognized Kingmakers. The outcome of the meeting was the election of the 3rd
respondent as the new Wa Naa. The 3rd respondent was en-skinned as the Wa-Naa
and the President of the Wala Traditional Council (WTC) on 21st January 2007.
The appellants, contending that the election of the 3rd respondent was conducted
contrary to the customs, traditions and practices of the Wa Nam, filed a
petition dated 22nd January 2007 challenging the said en-skinment. The
respondents’ not only denied the appellants claims but cross-petitioned that
the 3rd respondent was properly elected and enskinned. They also prayed for an
injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with the 3rd
respondent’s performance of his duties and functions as a chief.&nbsp; The respondents’ cross petition was upheld by
the UWRHC whilst the petition was dismissed. An appeal by the appellants to the
NHC was also dismissed. <o:p></o:p>As
regards the original petitioners, it is worth noting that the 1st and 3rd
petitioners passed on during the pendency of the appeal before the NHC. The
original 1st Petitioner Alhaji Issah Bukar who passed on was replaced by Alhaji
Mahama Bukari while the 3rd Petitioner Naa Mumuni Saaka, Sing Naa who also
passed on was substituted by Naa Abu Saliah Bafarado II. When the matter came
on appeal before the NHC in Kumasi the 2nd Petitioner /Appellant withdrew his
appeal. He was accordingly struck out as a party on 27th October 2010. The
decision of the NHC was therefore rendered against the two petitioners Alhaji
Mahama Bukari who would be referred to as the 1st appellant and Naa Abu Saliah
Bafarado II who would be referred to as the 2nd appellant.<o:p></o:p>CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT<o:p></o:p>This
appeal arising from the concurrent findings of fact by both the trial UWRHC and
the NHC cannot escape the obvious and generally held considerations or principles
upheld in numerous decisions of this court in such instances. The principle is
that where a finding of fact has been made by a trial court or judicial
committee as in this case and concurred in by the first appellate court or
tribunal (the NHC in this case) as in the present case, the second appellate
court (the Supreme Court) should be slow in coming to different conclusions
unless it is satisfied that there are strong pieces of evidence in the record
of appeal which make it manifestly clear that the findings of the trial and
first appellate tribunals are perverse. A few such cases on the point include
In re Wa Na; B.K.Adama (subst by) Issah Bukari &amp; Anor (2005-2006) SCGLR
1088; Gregory v Tandoh (IV) and Hanson (2010) SCGLR 971, at 985; Obeng v Assemblies
of God Church, Ghana 2010 SCGLR 300; Achoro v Akanfela (1996-97) SCGLR 209
(holding 2); Akufo-Addo v Cathline (1992) 1 GLR 377 per Osei Hwere JSC); Watt
(or Thomas v Thomas [1947] 1 AER 582; 176 LT 49, HL; KoglexLtd (No 2) v Field
[2000] SCGLR 175; Jass Co Ltd v Appau [2009} SCGLR 265 which deals with
circumstances justifying interference with findings of fact by the Supreme
Court; and Awuku Sao v Ghana Supply Co Ltd [2009] SCGLR 710</main>