OKOFO KOFI BUABIN III vs. NANA KWESI KENIN III AND BARIMA ASSUMANG KWANTE II [2016]DLCA5286

Date	2016-02-23
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT NO.HI/42/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5286

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A

MR. DANIEL ARTHUR FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. SAMUEL AGBOTTAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2016]DLCA5286
																																						<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" >OKOFO KOFI BUABIN III<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA KWESI KENIN III AND BARIMA ASSUMANG KWANTE II<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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 SUIT NO.HI/42/2015&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;DATE:
23RD FEBRUARY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>SAEED K. GYAN, J.A<o:p></o:p>This
appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court, Cape-Coast, and dated 13th
March, 2013. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the decision of the Trial
High Court the Plaintiff mounted the instant appeal by a Notice of Appeal filed
on 22nd March 2013. The Learned Trial judge had arrived at the
conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to adduce sufficient evidence in proof
of his claims indorsed on his writ and had accordingly dismissed the
Plaintiff’s action and rejected the reliefs sought by him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant filed three (3) original grounds of appeal with the
customary notification to file further or additional grounds upon receipt of
the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
said grounds are as follows:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(i)
The judgment is against the weight of the evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(ii)
The Trial Judge misdirected himself when he found that the so-called
arbitration was valid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;(iii) The cost warded cannot be justified.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant complained against the whole decision of the High Court and
sought an order of this court setting aside the judgment, including costs
awarded, and entering judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It appears from the record
that on 6/5/2013 the Plaintiff/Appellant filed notice of additional grounds of
Appeal. <o:p></o:p>There were seven (7)
additional grounds sought to be relied on, namely:-<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Trial Judge erred when in spite of
finding that what Nana Amponteng Fi II was mandated by the High Court Cape-Coast
to do was a settlement yet he held that the purported arbitration was valid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(ii)