THE REPUBLIC vs. ARBITRATION COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS PER THE TRADITIONAL REGISTRAR EX PARTE NANA BOADI MENSAH BONSUII AND NANA ETUAFO EDU IV [2017]DLCA4493

THE REPUBLIC vs. ARBITRATION COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS P... [2017]DLCA4493

Date	2017-10-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/5/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4493

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MR. ARTHUR FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT

MR. GEORGE MARK BADJIE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/ RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA4493
																																						<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>ARBITRATION COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS
PER THE TRADITIONAL REGISTRAR<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX
PARTE NANA BOADI MENSAH BONSUII (APPLICANT/APPELLANT)
AND NANA ETUAFO EDU IV (INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT)<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
APPEAL NO.&nbsp; H1/5/16&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; 30TH
OCTOBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. ARTHUR FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT<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">

MR. GEORGE MARK BADJIE FOR THE
INTERESTED PARTY/ RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING), GYAN J.A., SUURBAAREH J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" 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>HONYENUGA, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This &nbsp;&nbsp; is an
appeal by the applicant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant)
against the ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 10th day
of February 2015, which was in favour of the Interested Party/respondent and
the respondent/respondent (hereinafter called Interested party and the respondent
respectively).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of this appeal were that, upon a petition by
the Twedan Royal family of Enyan Abowinmau near Ajumako in the Central Region
which was addressed to the President of the Central Regional House of Chiefs, the
said President of the Regional House of Chiefs caused the Senior Traditional
Registrar to write a letter dated the 24th October, 2012 to invite
the parties to attend a settlement of their chieftaincy dispute on the 29th
October 2012.&nbsp; The parties were then put
before the Arbitration Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs (the
respondent) on the said date.&nbsp; The
parties met the said Committee and upon hearing them, published their
decision.&nbsp; The applicant who was not
happy with the decision then filed an application for Judicial Review in the
nature of Certiorari before the High Court, Cape Coast to quash the decision of
the Arbitration Committee on grounds of jurisdiction and the breach of natural
justice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the
parties, the learned trial judge, on the 10th February 2015,
dismissed the application and refused to quash the decision of the said the
respondent.&nbsp; Aggrieved by the ruling of
the High Court, Cape Coast, the applicant filed the instant appeal based on the
following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment is against the weight
of evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The cost awarded against the applicant
was unwarranted in the face of the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned trial judge failed to
rule on the capacity of the respondent to entertain cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the appellant.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Additional grounds of appeal would
be filed on receipt of the record of appeal.<o:p></o:p>A
perusal of the record of appeal indicated that no additional ground of appeal
was filed and it is therefore considered abandoned and struck out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the applicant argued grounds 1 and 2
together.&nbsp; Counsel contended that an
appeal is by way of rehearing and the appellant who is dissatisfied with the decision
appealed against it, is inviting the court to review the entire judgment he or
she is dissatisfied with and this could be done by applying the appropriate
laws to the evidence adduced to ascertain if the judgment could be varied.&nbsp; He cited Yaa
Saah v Nana Gyakwah [2013] 61 GMJ C.A. 112 @ 126 where the Court of Appeal
noted the Supreme Court case of Brown v
Quarshigah [2003-2004] SCGLR 930 quoted with approval Nkrumah v Ataa [1973] 2 GLR 13 at 18.&nbsp; Counsel further contended that where an
appellant contends that the jud</main>