AMANKWAH v. KYERE

Sometime ago (I think in early 1957) the defendant as chief of Kofiase together with his elders and people was thinking seriously of demolishing the Ahenfie and building a suitable one in its place. For this purpose upon their request the Agonahene permitted them to fell 300 timber trees on Kofiase stool land. I think the trees were accordingly felled, and at least £G700 was saved for the Ahenfie building project at the treasury at Agona. Just then as ill luck would have it, the defendant was destooled, and one Mr. Brentuo was installed Kofiasehene in his place. On the 1st July, 1957, therefore, Mr. Brentuo, now as Kofiasehene Nana Sarfo III, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to erect the said Ahenfie at Kofiase at the cost of £G3,060. The plaintiff began the work and erected the ground floor after advances totalling £G700 had been paid to plaintiff by the said stool represented by Nana Sarfo III.

Meanwhile the defendant Nana Kofi Kyere had lodged an appeal against his destoolment. This appeal was heard in due course and allowed. When he came back to the Kofiase stool the defendant refused to honour the agreement entered into by the said Nana Kofi Sarfo for the building of the Ahenfie on the grounds as stated in his statement of defence as follows:

"In further answer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of claim the defendant avers that the lawfully gazetted Chief of Kofiase the defendant herein, who had then appealed and later won his appeal against his destoolment and his accredited elders did not execute the said agreement of the 1st of July, 1957.

Furthermore defendant avers that on no occasion has Kofiase stool adopted the unauthorised work of the plaintiff herein and the Kofiase stool has made no promises to plaintiff herein to make payments to plaintiff in respect of the said work."

The main issue therefore is whether the agreement entered into by Nana Kofi Sarfo was binding on the Kofiase stool.

[p.411]

But before I continue let me consider a point of jurisdiction raised by Mr. Kofi Sackey for the defendant (but not argued). He reminded the court that its jurisdiction is excluded in matters concerning the election and installation of chiefs, and, inferentially, pointed out that if the efficacy or otherwise of the agreement depended on whether or not Kofi Sarfo was properly installed a chief then this court has no jurisdiction.

Section 41 of the Courts Act, 1960,1 enacted as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary c