SAVIOUR CHURCH OF GHANA vs. ABRAHAM KWAKU ADUSEI, JACOB ASIRIFI SNR., ENOCH OFORI, SETH DWUMFOUR AND DANIEL MENSAH [2021]DLSC11155

SAVIOUR CHURCH OF GHANA vs. ABRAHAM KWAKU ADUSEI, JACOB ASIRIFI SNR., ENOCH OFO... [2021]DLSC11155

Date	2021-11-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/12/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC11155

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

HONYENUGA JSC

AMADU JSC

ADDO-ATUAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

YAW OPPONG ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2021]DLSC11155
																																						<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" >SAVIOUR CHURCH OF GHANA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ABRAHAM KWAKU ADUSEI, JACOB ASIRIFI
SNR., ENOCH OFORI, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SETH DWUMFOUR AND DANIEL
MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/12/2021 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
24TH NOVEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ADDO-ATUAH ESQ.
FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;tab-stops:100.55pt;
border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">YAW OPPONG
ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>APPAU JSC (PRESIDING),
PWAMANG JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, HONYENUGA JSC, AMADU 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 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MAJORITY
OPINION<o:p></o:p>PWAMANG
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>My Lords, this case is not as complicated as it
has been presented in the statements of case of the parties since key aspects
of the matters in contention have over the past twenty years been settled by
final decisions of the courts below us. However, this appeal appears to me to
be the first time the facts and applicable law concerning Saviour Church of
Ghana will be considered by the apex court. Because the litigation concerning
the church seems to be recurring, the judgment we give in this case ought to
clarify and settle all issues in dispute between the parties and be devoid of
ambiguity. This way, we shall hope to stem any future attempts to re-open this
matter on a claim that an aspect of the differences between the parties was not
resolved, as is being urged on us in this case.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;BACKGROUND
OF THE CASE<o:p></o:p>My Lords, in the course of this judgment, it shall
shortly become plain that when everything in this suit is stripped to the bare
bones, it is a dispute about which of the two factions of Saviour Church of
Ghana is the successor to the Saviour Church of Ghana founded by the late
Opanyin Samuel Brako, who was succeeded by Opanyin Isaac Asirifi alias
“Dadeako,” with headquarters at Osiem in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Is it the
Elias Asirifi Asante Faction represented here by the
plaintiff/respondent/respondent, or the Abraham Kweku Adusei Faction
represented by the defendants/appellants/appellants. For that reason, I shall
refer to the parties as “the Elias Asirifi Faction” or “the plaintiff” and “the
Abraham Adusei Faction” or “the defendants”. The two Factions emerged following
the death of Opanyin Isaac Asirifi in 1997 due to causes that are not relevant
for our purposes here, leading to series of court cases between them. The cases
were consolidated and heard by Gbadegbe J (as he then was) who identified the
main bone of contention between the factions to be which faction was the
authentic successor to the original church. In the final judgment of the High
Court, Gbadegbe JA,( who had by then been elevated to the Court of Appeal bench
and was sitting as an Additional High Court judge)dated 10th June,
2003, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in their judgment dated 26th
February, 2004, it was decided that it is the Abraham Adusei Faction that is
the successor to the original church and that the Elias Asirifi Faction had
broken off from the main church and were conducting themselves as a separate
entity and no longer belonged to the original church. Gbadegbe JA (as he then
was) held as follows at page 4 of his judgment;<o:p></o:p>“I must say
that initially when I read through the several pleadings I conceived of my task
in a different perspective in terms of what the parties were claiming and the
court’s decision thereon but having listened to the evidence and read the same
patiently and carefully,&nbsp; I see that my
task is lightened by the fact that the evidence on both sides of the&nbsp; divide leave them in no doubt that following
the differences which provoked the actions herein the parties herein have for
some time now operated differently each with a General Superintendent.&nbsp; Whiles the plaintiffs have accepted the
leadership of Abraham Edusei the defendant have accepted that of Elias
Asirifi&nbsp; one of the surviving children of
the deceased General Superintendent, Opanyin Isaac Asirifi. That this is so is
clearly borne out by the evidence and accepted by both parties to the actions herein…..
Clearly, in my opinion from the moment that the defendants perhaps out of
deference to their conscience and religious beliefs decided to have a new
leader in the person of Elias Asirifi they had parted ways from the group,
which is led by Abraham Edusei. In my thinking, the defendants by their
decision to appoint a new leader and operate separately from the existing
church had broken away and cannot continue thereafter to be regarded as members
of the Saviour Church of Ghana…..It would appear from the evidence that as a
result of the break its members have had nothing to</main>