|
JUDGMENT
EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal from the
judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs dated 8th May 1991
which affirmed the decision of
the Judicial Committee of the
Central Region House of Chiefs
in favour of the Respondent.
Two main submissions were urged
on behalf of the appellants in
this appeal. The first was that,
the capacity in which the
respondent sued, and by which he
claims to have the sole
authority and responsibility as
the head of the Ntwea Royal
Family to nominate a candidate
for installation as the
Krontihene of the Atwia Bando
Stool of the Eguafo Traditional
Area was one of status and that
both the Judicial Committee of
the Central Region House of
Chiefs and National House of
Chiefs were not clothed with
jurisdiction to adjudicate on
and determine who is the
accredited head of Ntwia Abusua
in the Eguafo Traditional Area.
It was therefore urged on behalf
of the appellant's that the
determination of the issue of
headship not being "a cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy"
within the language and meaning
of the Chieftaincy Act, Act 370
of 1971 the decision in favour
of the Respondent was null and
void.
The second ground urged on
behalf of the appellants was
that on the merits, two issues
raised on the evidence for
resolution by the National House
of Chiefs, were not resolved.
i.e. namely the issues as to
headship of the Ntwea family and
the issue as to whether the 2nd
appellant was nominated by the
proper person to ascend the
Bando Stool? We will first deal
with the second ground urged on
behalf of the appellants.
To me, the main issues raised
for determination, in this
appeal are two in number.
(a) Whether on the evidence, the
respondent/petitioner had
capacity, or showed a capacity
by which the Chieftaincy
Tribunal's conclusion in favour
of the Respondent can be
justified or be supported and
(b) Whether the first
appellant/respondent to the
petition was customarily right
to nominate the queenmother of
Bando to ascend the male
Krontire stool at a time she
occupies the female stool? This
latter act by the 1st appellant
provoked the present action.
It is not in dispute that the
determination of "b" supra is a
"cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy" within the language
and meaning of the Chieftaincy
Act, Act 370 of 1971 which
defines a "cause or matter
affecting Chieftaincy by S.66 as
follows: In this Act, a "cause
or matter affecting chieftaincy"
means any cause, matter,
question or dispute relating to
any of the following—
(a) the nomination, election,
appointment or installation of
any person as a Chief or the
claim of any person to be
nominated, elected, appointed or
installed as a Chief.
(b) the destoolment or
abdication of any Chief.
(c) the right of any person to
take part in the nomination,
election, appointment or
installation of any person as a
Chief or in the destoolment of
any Chief;
(d) the recovery or delivery of
stool property in connection
with any such nomination,
election, appointment,
installation, destoolment or
abdication;
(e) the constitutional
relations under customary law
between Chiefs.
It is also not in dispute that
the two lower Chieftaincy
Tribunals (i.e. the Judicial
Committee of the Central Region
House of Chiefs and the National
House of Chiefs) made a positive
finding in favour of the
respondent on issue (b) supra by
holding "that a queenmother
cannot ascend at least
simultaneously to the male
stool". See also paragraph 4 of
appellant's Statement of Case at
page 2.
The above concurrent findings of
fact in favour of the respondent
set to rest issue i.e. issue 'b'
supra. The cases of Kofi vrs.
Kofi 1 WACA 284 G.C. and Ntha
vrs. Benneh 2 WACA 1 G.C. Privy
Council Appeal No. 94 of 1914
are authorities for the
proposition that decision of
native tribunals in matters
peculiarly within their
knowledge arrived at after a
fair hearing and on relevant
evidence should not be disturbed
without clear proof that they
are wrong. The above finding in
favour of the Respondent is
supported by evidence on record
and no convincing arguments have
been urged on the appellant's
behalf that such a finding was
wrongly made. I will therefore
in my opinion refrain from
interfering with same. This
ground of appeal therefore
fails.
On the issue of capacity, it is
not disputed that the respondent
is a member of the Ntwea Royal
Stool family of Ntwea Eguafo
Traditional Area.
In this regard by the authority
laid by this court in Nana
Gyamfi, Jamasehene and others
vrs. Major (Rtd) Osei Kwaku and
another, Chieftaincy Appeal
No.12/93 unreported dated 11th
April, 1995 S.C. this court held
that "even though the
petitioners held no customary
office in the Mampon Royal
Family, nevertheless they were
royals, hence their action was
maintainable against the
defendants. On that basis the
respondent in this appeal being
a member of Ntwea Royal family,
his action can be maintained.
Moreover, on the authority of
Mantse Kwadwo Ababio and another
vrs. Quartey and another, Privy
Council 1914-1928 (1914 P.C.).
It was held that where a
plaintiff sues in a wrong
capacity and in the course of
action some capacity is
disclosed which would have
enable him to mention the suit
he should not be non suited but
the court should allow all
amendments necessary for the
purpose of settling the real
controversy between the parties.
We will therefore, in my
judgment dismiss the appeal
subject to allowing an amendment
of the capacity in which the
respondent maintained his action
in line with the above
authorities as if he brought his
action in his own capacity as a
member of Ntwea Royal family.
This appeal fails also on this
ground. See Rule 22 of C.I. 27
of 1972 and Article 129(4) of
the Constitution.
EDWARD WIREDU,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
MRS. BAMFORD-ADDO,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
KPEGAH,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ADJABENG,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
MS. AKUFFO,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
Charles Hayibor for the
Appellants
Mr. Osafo Buabeng holding
Ahenkorah's brief for the
Respondent, with him Mr.
Danso-Acheampong |
