DANIEL TETTEH NORPEWEJA & ORS v. EMMANUEL KWAKU NUERTEY & ORS

SOWAH, J.A:

On 22nd January 2014, the High Court Koforidua refused an application by the defendants/appellants’ to dismiss the writ of summons filed by the plaintiff/respondents'. Being dissatisfied with the Ruling, the appellants' have filed this interlocutory appeal, praying that the ruling of the High Court be set aside and the suit filed by the respondents be dismissed with heavy cost against respondents.

The background facts which have culminated in this appeal are as follows: The respondents filed a writ of summons praying for an Order setting aside an arbitration which was held at the Tribunal of the Kornor of Manya Krobo in 2009. The subject matter of the arbitration was a parcel of land. The respondents' alleged that the requirement of Natural Justice that no man shall be judge in his own cause had been breached by one of the panel of arbitrators. The appellants entered appearance and filed a statement of defence in which they averred and contended that the respondents were members of the Zezeenya clan and were bound by a 1978 arbitration that took place before the Kornor of Manya Krobo’s Arbitration Tribunal in respect of the same parcel of land. In their Reply, the respondents refuted that they were bound by the said

1978 arbitration. They averred that neither they nor any member of their family was a party to that arbitration, and moreover, the parcel of land which was arbitrated was different from the subject matter of the present action.

Among the issues filed by the respondent for determination was the issue ‘Whether or not the land which was the subject-matter of the arbitration in 1978 is the same as the land which was arbitrated upon in 2009.’ [See pages 13, 14 of the record of appeal]

At the close of pleadings, the appellants filed a motion titled “Motion on Notice to Dismiss plaintiff’s action for being estopped with their action”. They averred in their affidavit in support that the respondents were estopped from bringing the action by the 1978 and 2009 arbitration awards which they exhibited. The application

was opposed by the respondents on the grounds they had averred to in their pleadings.

The trial judge heard the application and ruled in the following words:

“The court has indicated that from the papers filed it is necessary to go into the matter as the plaintiffs is denying any knowledge of an arbitration of which they were parties. Since directions have been taken the matter is adjourned to 26/3/2014 for possible heari