NANA BRONIN ABANKRO V AND NANA KUMI AMOFA vs. SOLOMON NTIAMOAH AND 7 OTHERS [2017]DLCA5564

Date	2017-07-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/14/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA5564

ADJEI J.A

SOWAH J.A

MENSAH J.A

MARTIN AMEYAW ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

KWASI ADU MANTE ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDNATS/APPELLANTS

[2017]DLCA5564
																																						<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 BRONIN ABANKRO V
AND NANA KUMI AMOFA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON NTIAMOAH AND 7
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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">

SUIT
NO. H1/14/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 12TH
JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

KWASI ADU MANTE ESQ. FOR THE
DEFENDNATS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ADJEI
J.A, SOWAH J.A, MENSAH 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="MsoNoSpacing" 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>Adjei, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendant in the High Court,
Koforidua claiming for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the House Numbered B.25, situate at Akim
Adusina is the property of the Nana Ofosua branch of the Royal Aduana family of
Adausina.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that by Akyem Kotoku custom and practices the
late Nana Ntiamoah Bediako IV cannot be buried at the Adausina Royal Mausoleum
without the knowledge, consent and active participation and involvement of the
chief and elders of the Adusina Stool.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the late Nana
Ntiamoah Bediako IV being an ex-chief cannot, by Akyem Kotoku custom, be given
a Royal burial at Adausina without the knowledge, consent and active
participation of the chief and elders of the Adausina Stool.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants,
their agents, assigns etc. from having anything to do with House Number B.25
Adausina”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants filed a
motion to set aside the writ that, inter alia, the reliefs being sought by the plaintiffs
against them fall within the domain of cause of matter affecting chieftaincy
which the original appellate jurisdictions of the High Court have been ousted
by statute. The defendants specification referred to paragraphs 6,7,8,9,10 and
11 of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and concluded that the averments
contained therein constitute a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The trial
High Court dismissed the defendants’ application and held that the facts
contained in the statement of claim border on the custom of Akim Kotoku and do
not translate into a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The defendants dissatisfied
with the ruling of the trial High court delivered on 20th August,
2013 filed an interlocutory appeal against the said ruling to this Court on 5th
September, 2013.<o:p></o:p>There are four grounds of
appeal in the notice of appeal and they are as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ruling is against the weight of evidence<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court erred in law by holding that the Suit was not a
Chieftaincy matter even though the pleadings as well as the reliefs the
Plaintiffs were seeking were related to the exercise of Chieftaincy powers.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court also erred in law in holding that the case was
justiciable even though relief 1 of plaintiffs’ claims fell foul of the
Limitations Act 1972 (NRCD 54) and therefore was statutorily barred.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court erred in law by holding that the case was not an
abuse of the judicial process even though the 1st plaintiff was contesting his
status as a Chief by seeking the restoration of his name expunged from the
register of the National House of chiefs in the Kumasi High Court a situation that
is likely to bring the High Court into disrepute”.<o:p></o:p>We address the first
ground of appeal which states that the ruling is against the weight of evidence
on record. The defendants are inviting this Court to rehear the matter by the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and to correct all the errors committed
by the trial High Court Judge, and to finally arrive at a right conclusion. An
appellate court whose jurisdiction has been invoked by an applicant against a
ruling which alleges that the ruling is against the weight of evidence on
record is required to take into account the depositions contained in the
supporting affidavit of the motion filed by the defendant, the exhibits or the
annexures in support of the application, the affidavit in opposition and its
exhibits or annexures, and satisfy itself as to whether the findings of facts
made, legal and issues discussed and the conclusion arrived the court below can
be supported. We have examined the entire processes filed by the parties in
respect of the application to set aside the writ and we could not see any error
committed by the trial High Court judge which requires the intervention of this
Court. The applicant who alleges th</main>