NANA KOW MENSAH KING vs. OPANIN KWEKU KYIKYIBI GYAN [2015]DLSC3599

Date	2015-07-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/5/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3599

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKAMBA JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS /APPELLANTS

REPHAEL ALIJINA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLSC3599
																																						<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 KOW MENSAH KING<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OPANIN KWEKU KYIKYIBI GYAN<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. J4/5/2015&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 22ND
JULY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JAMES
AHENKORAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/ 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">

REPHAEL
ALIJINA ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC,
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKAMBA 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>ADINYIRA JSC: <o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
(Appellant) on 18th of October, 2012 issued a writ of Summons with
statement of claim at the High Court against defendant/Respondent/Respondent (Respondent”)
for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that the judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs in so far as it purportedly
made a finding of fact that the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld as
raising issues estoppels against the party the issue was determined against and
privies without giving the Ayirebi Acquahs and for that matter the Tumpa Anona
Family members the right of hearing breached the principles of natural justice.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order to set aside the judgment of the
Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs that purported to
determine issues that directly affect the interest of the Ayirebi Acquahs and
the Tumpa Anona Royal Family of Winneba without giving the family a hearing.<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Cost.<o:p></o:p>On 9 November, 2012,
Respondent filed application before the trial court to dismiss the suit on the
ground that it was a matter affecting chieftaincy.<o:p></o:p>The Appellant resisted the
application by filling affidavit in opposition.&nbsp;
Counsel for the parties filed written addresses for hearing of the
application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>On the 17 June, 2013, the
learned judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was an abuse of process
but not that it was a matter affecting chieftaincy as raised by the Defendant.&nbsp; Being aggrieved of the ruling, Appellant
filed appeal before the Court of Appeal on the 18th day of July,
2013 against the ruling.<o:p></o:p>On the 12 June, 2014, the Court
of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the High Court dismissing
the suit but on grounds of jurisdiction that the suit was a matter affecting chieftaincy.
The Court held:<o:p></o:p>“All the other grounds of appeal
raised by the plaintiff are without merits and they should fail. Jurisdiction
goes to the root of the suit and once there is no jurisdiction we shall affirm
the conclusion by the trial judge dismissing the suit but with different
reasons stated in the judgment.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 13th day of August, 2014,
Appellant filed the instant appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal
on 3 grounds. However in his statement of case filed on 20 October, 2014,
Counsel for the Appellant argued only the first ground of the appeal stating he
abandoned the two grounds because the one ground is sufficient to dispose of
the appeal.<o:p></o:p>That ground argued by
Counsel for Appellant was couched thus:<o:p></o:p>