NII AMARKAI III AND OTHERS vs. NII OYENINAA TEIKO TAGOE [2018]DLHC3447

Date	2018-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 1764/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3447

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3447
																																						<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" >NII AMARKAI III AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NII OYENINAA TEIKO TAGOE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO. GJ
1764/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 28TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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:4.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" 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:4.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>It
is stated under Order 33 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.
I. 47 as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Where
it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in
any cause or matter and tried separately from the main cause or matter
substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders trial of the main
cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such
other order or give such judgment as may be just”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Based on the above rule the court in the exercise of its
discretion to moderate the trial to achieve effective and speedy justice and on
a consideration of the pleadings and issues before the court invited the
lawyers to address the court on the following questions posed to them:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">Whether
 or not the determination of who is the Dzasetse and also the acting&nbsp; Mantse of Asere is not a cause or a
 matter affecting chieftancy.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">If
 the answer to the question above is yes whether this court is clothed with
 jurisdiction to determine a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
court was minded to pose the above questions for answers due to the first claim
of the Plaintiff endorsed on the writ of summons wherein it prays for:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
declaration that the 1st Plaintiff as Dzatsete and acting Asere
Mantse has the right to use the Asere palace for the purposes of the Asere
stool.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiffs
in their statement of claim contend in paragraph 1 that: “The 1st Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere and acting Asere
Mantse”. The Defendant in his statement of Defence respond to this
allegation as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“In answer to paragraphs 1
and 2 of the statement of claim Defendants state state that the 1st
Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere. He is not the acting Asere Mantse since there
is a substantive Asere Mantse who is known as Nii Asere Boi VII who was
enstooled in 2007”. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
denial of the claim that 1st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse,
in the reply of the Plaintiffs notes that even though there was installation of
the said person but same had been challenged by the Dzorshie family and until
the resolution of whole is the Asere Mantse, 1st Plaintiff is the
acting Asere Mantse. In the face of such assertion and denials issues were
joined in the application for directions when among others, this was put down
as part of the issues for determination: whether or not the 1st
Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Will
the determination of this issue be a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy?
The Courts Act, Act 459, section 57 divest all the traditional courts, with the
exception of the Supreme Court of either original or appellate jurisdiction
over cause or matter affecting affecting chieftancy except where the matter
before the High Court is in respect of the invocation of the supervisory
jurisdiction of the court or a matter seeking to declare as a nullity a
decision of a chietancy tribunal as null and void due to fraud. See the
decision of Pwamang JSC in EBUSUAPANIN
NTIAKO KOBINA E. KOBI v AHANTA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL J4/62/2016’ 2ND
MAY, 2018.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For
the section 57 states as follows: 
 
<o:p></o:p>