THE REPUBLIC vs. WASSA FIASE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL AND NANA AKWASI SOMPREY II EXPARTE:-ABUSUAPANYIN KOFI NYAMEKYE AND OTHERS [2015]DLSC3237

THE REPUBLIC vs. WASSA FIASE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL AND NANA AKWASI SOMPREY II EXPA... [2015]DLSC3237

Date	2015-05-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/55/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3237

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

PRINCE KWEKU HODO ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

E. K. AMUA SEKYI ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLSC3237
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WASSA FIASE TRADITIONAL
COUNCIL AND NANA AKWASI SOMPREY II<o:p></o:p>EXPARTE:-ABUSUAPANYIN
KOFI NYAMEKYE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/55/2014&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE: 28TH
MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>PRINCE
KWEKU HODO ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<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">

E.
K. AMUA SEKYI ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS <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">

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC, ANIN YEBOAH JSC,
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE JSC:<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal by the Applicants/Appellants/Appellants, hereafter referred to as
the Applicants, against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, dated 16th May2013which
was in favour of the Respondents/Respondents/Respondents, hereafter referred to
as Respondents.<o:p></o:p>From
the above brief narration, what is certain is that, both the trial High Court and
the first appellate court, the Court of Appeal all made findings of fact
against the Applicants and ruled against them respectively. <o:p></o:p>There
is no doubt therefore that, on the present state of the decided cases, the
Applicants have a difficult task in attempting to set aside two concurrent findings
of fact made against them, even though such a task is not insurmountable. See
cases such as Obeng v Assemblies of God Church [2010] SCGLR 300, Achoro v Akanfela
[1996-97] SCGLR 209just to mention a few.<o:p></o:p>FACTS OF THE CASE<o:p></o:p>An
attempt by some persons to install a rival chief at Dumase Wassa in the Wassa Fiase
Traditional Area, led to the arrest and arraignment of some people before the
Circuit Court, Tarkwa on charges relating to breach of the peace.<o:p></o:p>The
1st Respondent, The Wassa Fiase Traditional Council, applied to the
Circuit Court, Tarkwa to have the matter withdrawn and referred to it for
settlement. The Court granted the request of the 1st Respondents,
but the attempt at settlement was not successful, and as a result, the matter
was referred back to the court.<o:p></o:p>In
order to appreciate the clarity of thought and reasoning that explained the
referral of the case back to the Circuit Court, it is prudent at this stage to
quote the relevant portions of the said decision.<o:p></o:p>“Due to
the recalcitrant attitude of the culprits coupled with the refusal to obey the
Omanhene’s call and later instructions by the panel, we order that the case be
sent back to court to be determined on it’s merits.”<o:p></o:p>Despite
the clarity of thought exhibited by the above quoted decision of the 1st
Respondents in referring the case back to the Circuit Court, Tarkwa for hearing
and determination, the Applicants herein filed an application for judicial
review in the nature of Certiorari to quash the decision of the arbitration
panel set up by the 1st Respondents to go into the case that was
withdrawn.<o:p></o:p>It
is also instructive to note that, the decision which the Applicants sought to
quash was purported to have been taken by the 1st Respondents on 8th
December, 2005. However, it was not until August 2011, that the Applicants
applied for leave for extension of time to apply for the judicial review which
by order 55 rule 3 of the High Court, Civil (Procedure) Rules 2004 ought to
have been filed within six (6) months without any provision for extension of time,
save the general provisions for extension of time provided in order 80 rules
(4) and (5) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial High Court Judge, Ohene Essel presiding over the High Court at
Tarkwa, and proceeding under the belief that he had jurisdiction to grant extension
of time, granted same as a result of which the Applicants filed the pursuant
application for the judicial review, with the following relevant portions of
the affidavit in support of the said application set out in full.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “That the Dumase stool was from time
immemorial an inheritable Odikro stool within the Himan Division of the Wassa Fiase
Traditional Area.<o:p></o:p>