ABDULAI MAHAMADU & NAA SULE ALHASSAN v. KAMPAKUYA-NAA & KPAN-NAA BAWAH MAHAMADU

ADJEI,J.A:

The Defendants/Appellants dissatisfied with the ruling delivered by the High Court Tamale on 11th November,2013 filed this appeal to this Court to set aside the ruling and dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim under Order 11 Rule 18(1) (a) (b) and (d) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules C.I. 47.

The Plaintiff filed the suit which culminated in this appeal against the Defendants in their respective capacities as the regent and an elder of Dagbon. The 1st Plaintiff is the son of the late Mahamadu Abdulai IV while the 2nd Plaintiff is a principal member of the Abdulai Royal Family of Yendi. The two reliefs sought by the plaintiffs were for a declaration that the late Mahamadu Abdulai IV was a former Ya-Na and he should be accorded full funeral rites as given to all those who ascended unto the Nam of Yendi in accordance with Dagbon Constitution and Customary practices and a further order that the Defendants perform the funeral of the deceased as a late Ya-Na.

The Plaintiffs in their statement of claim averred that the late Mahamadu Abdulai IV died on 15th October, 1988 and was buried at the Royal Palace on 15th October, 1998 but his funeral has not been celebrated up to date and the Defendants who are at the helm of affairs in the Dagbon State should be ordered to celebrate his funeral in accordance with the Constitution and Customary practices of the people of Dagbon.

The Defendants filed their statement of defence and resisted the plaintiffs’ claim. On 31st August, 2012 the Defendants filed an application under Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (a) (b) and (d) of C.I. 47 for the plaintiffs’ pleadings to be struck out on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, it was frivolous, vexatious and constituted an abuse of the process of the Court.

The trial High Court dismissed the Defendants’ application and held that the pleadings could not be struck out and must proceed for trial. The Defendants dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial High Court filed an interlocutory appeal against the said ruling to this court. The grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiffs are as follows:

“1. Having regard to the declaration of the Supreme Court in Re Yendi Skin Affairs; Yakubu II vs. Abdulai (NO. 2) that the purported nomination, selection and enskinment of Mahamadu Abdulai were null and void the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the late Mahamadu Abdulai “was a Ya-Na duly enskined”.

2. The learned trial Judge misconstrued the views of the le