THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA NTSIFUL @ PETER GYAABIN AND EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI NANTIE AND 3 OTHERS EX PARTE NANA KWABENA AMO II, CHIEF OF AKYEMPIM V [2017]DLCA4547

THE REPUBLIC vs. NANA NTSIFUL @ PETER GYAABIN AND EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI NANTIE AND 3... [2017]DLCA4547

Date	2017-05-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/08/14
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4547

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MR. PHILIP NKRUMAH FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

MR. VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPELLANT & THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLCA4547
																																						<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>NANA NTSIFUL @ PETER GYAABIN<o:p></o:p>(1ST
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>AND
EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI NANTIE AND 3 OTHERS (RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NANA KWABENA AMO II, CHIEF OF
AKYEMPIM V (APPLICANT/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; H1/08/14&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;29TH
MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. PHILIP NKRUMAH FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<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. VICTOR OWUSU FOR THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT &amp; THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS<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 appeal is about a chieftaincy dispute at Akyempim
and it is against the judgment of the High Court, Tarkwa, dated the 4th
day of February, 2011.&nbsp; The said court
had granted an application for judicial review to wit certiorari brought by the
applicant/respondent (hereinafter called the respondent) against the 1st
respondent/appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) and the
respondents/respondents.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of this appeal were that the respondent is
the legitimate chief of Akyempim, having been recognized as such by a
publication in the Local Government Bulletin dated the 28th October
2005.&nbsp; Without any destoolment charges
having been filed against him at the Judicial Committee of the Traditional
Council, the respondents/respondent at a family gathering purported to have
destooled the respondent.&nbsp; No customary
rites were performed and the alleged charges were communicated to the
respondent through letters.&nbsp; Having thus
destooled the respondent, the appellant was then purportedly installed as the
new chief.&nbsp; Aggrieved by the acts of the
appellant and the respondent/respondent, the respondent subsequently filed an application
for judicial review by way of certiorari to quash the decision of the appellant
and others.&nbsp; On the 4th day of
February, 2011, the learned trial judge granted the prayer of the respondent and
quashed the findings and or observations and proceedings culminating into the
purported destoolment of the respondent as a nullity.&nbsp; The trial judge also quashed the purported
estoolment of the appellant as the new chief.&nbsp;
Furthermore, the learned trial judge prohibited the appellant from
styling or holding himself out as a chief of Akyempim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Being dissatisfied with the ruling of the learned trial
judge, the appellant filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
judgment of (sic) was against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
legal and factual basis of the judgment of the High Court, Tarkwa, dated the 4th
February, 2011, are erroneous in law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
High Court had no jurisdiction to determine the matter.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
trial judge was functus officio when he delivered the judgment on the 4th
February 2011.<o:p></o:p>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional
grounds of appeal would be filed upon the receipt of the record”.<o:p></o:p>On the 30th May, 2012, the appellant filed
additional grounds of appeal thus:-<o:p></o:p>“The learned trial judge erred in law by granting a
relief which was not asked for by the applicant/respondent”.<o:p></o:p>Before proceeding to consider the written submissions
of counsel, I would address the complaint of the learned counsel for the
respondent that the additional ground of appeal filed by counsel for the
appellant on the 30th May, 2012, was without leave of this
court.&nbsp; Rule 8(8) and (9) of the Court of
Appeal Rules 1997 (C.I. 19) provides:-<o:p></o:p>“(8)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
appellant shall not, without the leave of the court, argue or be heard in
support of a ground of objection not mentioned in the notice of appeal, but the
court may allow the appellant to amend the grounds of appeal on the terms that
the court thinks just.<o:p></o:p>(9)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite
subrules (4) to (8), the court in deciding the appeal shall not be confined to
the grounds set out by the appellant but the court shall not rest its decision
on a ground not set out by the appellant unless the respondent has had
sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground”.<o:p></</main>