ALHAJI ISSAH BUKAR, GBETOR NAA & ANOR. vs. MAHAMA BAYONG OF SUYIRI & 3 ORS. [2014]DLSC6146

Date	2014-05-21
Suit No.	CHIEFTANCY [sic] APPEAL NO.J2/1/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC6146

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]DLSC6146
																																						<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 &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAHAMA BAYONG OF SUYIRI
&amp; 3 ORS.<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 [sic] 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; &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. <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.&nbsp;
This case commenced by petition at the UWRHC in 2007.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; A vacancy was thus created in the Wa
Paramount skin.&nbsp; 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[sic] to a meeting for the purpose of nominating and electing
a new Wa Naa.&nbsp; The meeting took place on
19th January 2007 and attended by five out of the seven recognized Kingmakers.&nbsp; The outcome of the meeting was the election
of the 3rd respondent as the new Wa Naa.&nbsp;
The 3rd respondent was en-skinned as the Wa-Naa and the President of the
Wala Traditional Council (WTC) on 21st January 2007.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The respondents’
not only denied the appellants claims but cross-petitioned that the 3rd
respondent was properly elected and enskinned.&nbsp;
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. The respondents’ cross petition was upheld by the UWRHC whilst the
petition was dismissed.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>An
appeal by the appellants to the NHC was also dismissed. 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; When the matter
came on appeal before the NHC in Kumasi the 2nd Petitioner/Appellant withdrew
his appeal.&nbsp; He was accordingly struck
out as a party on 27th October 2010.&nbsp; 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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; Koglex Ltd (No
2) v Field [2000] SCGLR 175; Jass Co Ltd v Appau [2009] SCGLR 265 which deals
with circ</main>