AMAKYIE v. ABABIO AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.A.

Mensa Boison J.A. The defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), by counsel moves this court for the following reliefs:

(a) an order setting aside the execution carried out by the deputy sheriff of the High Court, Sunyani, on 23 March 1982;

(b) an order of stay of execution of the writ of delivery in the above-mentioned matter; and

(c) any other order or orders which this court sees fit to make."

About 20 October 1980, the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) applied to the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs (henceforth referred to simply as the regional house) requesting it to take delivery and custody of the stool properties of Ntrotroso. The two plaintiffs were alleged respectively, to be the Gyasehene and the new chief of Ntrotroso. The ground for their application was that there was a pending dispute over the status of the defendant as the Ntrotrosohene.

For what apparently appears as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the regional house, the defendant stayed away from the hearing of 20 October 1980, although he opposed the said application on an affidavit filed by him. The regional house, nonetheless, acceded to the plaintiffs' application, and by its order, dated 22 October 1980, the regional house was to take delivery and custody of the stool properties of the Ntrotroso stool as specified in a list attached to the said application.

Against this order, the defendant filed a notice of intention to appeal to the National House of Chiefs on 30 October 1980. The said appeal has, however, not proceeded any further even at the hearing of this motion on 9 May 1983. The cause of this inaction apparently seems to be lack of cordiality or a misunderstanding in getting the conditions of appeal fulfilled.

In the meantime, on 28 May 1981, the plaintiffs applied for a writ of delivery for the said stool properties. The writ was granted by the High Court, Sunyani, on 25 June 1981. An initial attempt to execute the writ was restricted by the defendant's refusal to hand over to the bailiffs the said properties. Needless to say, the refusal laid the defendant open to contempt proceeding (which is not material here) before the High Court, Sunyani. What is important is that simultaneously with that proceeding, that is on 15 October 1981, the defendant applied to that court to have the writ of delivery set aside and to stay execution thereof. For various reasons, the two proceedin