THE REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF SEKONDI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [2020]DLSC9916

Date	2020-11-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/25/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9916

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

PROF. KOTEY JSC

BAFFOUR DWUMAH FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

JOHN MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPPELLANT

NANA CONDUAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT/APPPELLANT

[2020]DLSC9916
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk35510717">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF SEKONDI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE:
EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI SUSU (SUBST BY EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI ASANTE SUBST BYOSOFO JOSHUA
WILLIAM KWEKU DONKOR)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(APPLICANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EBUSUAPAYIN
KWESI MUSU (SUBT. BY OPANYIN YAW BADU)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTYRESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/25/2020&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BAFFOUR DWUMAH FOR
THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>JOHN MERCER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

NANA
CONDUAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT/APPPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DOTSE, JSC
(PRESIDING), APPAU, JSC, PWAMANG, JSC ,&nbsp;
DORDZIE (MRS.), JSC , PROF. KOTEY, JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:
150%;tab-stops:147.0pt;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>DORDZIE, JSC (MRS.):-<o:p></o:p>In order to make the conclusions I would come to
in this appeal clear, I find it necessary to carefully outline the sequence of
how events unfolded in this matter from the Judicial Committee of the Sekondi
Traditional Council through the High Court to the Court of Appeal and finally
to this Court, the apex court. Particularly because I find some of the facts as
laid out in the submissions of both sides in this appeal a bit distorted.<o:p></o:p>By a writ of summons dated 15th day of June 2005
The respondent in this court Ebusuapanyin Kwamina Essa (described as the head
of family of the Kokodo Ebiradze Royal family of Fijai Kweikuma) per an
attorney, Kofi Susu and 3 others instituted an action in the Sekondi
Traditional Council against Opanyin Kwesi Musu the interested party herein and
another. Their claims, per the record are as follows:-<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration
that the nomination and selection of one Amo as the chief of Fijai by the
defendants is contrary to the custom and tradition of Fijai and therefore null
and void.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration
that the 3rd plaintiff was validly nominated, selected confirmed,
and outdoored as the chief of Fijai.<o:p></o:p>In the statement of claim accompanying the writ,
the plaintiffs alleged the 3rd plaintiff Nana Agyeman Gyesa alias
Alfred Kwofie was lawfully installed by the kingmakers of the royal family with
the approval of the 2nd defendant, the Queen mother of the said
royal family. Not long after the installation, the 1st defendant
with the collaboration of the 2nd defendant have installed another
person, one Amo, as chief of Fijai thereby creating confusion in the community.<o:p></o:p>The defendants responded to the writ by filing a
motion to dismiss it. On the 21st of December 2005 the Judicial
Committee dismissed the motion and gave the case a full hearing.&nbsp; In an undated judgment marked as exhibit
EKS5&nbsp; at page 22 of the record, the
Committee gave its decision as follows: “Considering
the nature of the case brought before the Judicial Committee of Sekondi
Traditional Council and how both nominations, confinements and installations
took place by the Plaintiffs and Defendants at Fijai, the committee is of the
opinion that the claim of the Plaintiffs ought to be dismissed and it is hereby
dismissed accordingly and at the same time declare both installations by
Plaintiffs and Defendant null and void and have no custom and legal effect. No
order as to costs. “<o:p></o:p>From the claims placed before the Judicial
Committee as quoted above the issues in my view the Committee had to decide
were two: <o:p></o:p>