DZAMEFE, JA
This appeal is against the ruling of the Fast Track High Court, Accra dated 19th October 2010 striking out paragraph 19 of the defendant/appellant’s amended statement of defence.
The defendant, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, dissatisfied with the ruling filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
1. The ruling was wrong in law,
2. The court erred in holding that the said paragraph 19 relates to a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
The appellant, prayed this court to set aside the ruling and restore the amended paragraph.
The brief facts of the case as presented by the appellant is that the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, issued a writ of summons and a statement of claim, for two reliefs;-
1. A declaration that the defendant is not the head of the Nii Dodoo Clottey family of Pokuase.
2. An injunction against the defendant to restrain him from holding himself as the head of the Nii Dodoo Clottey family of Pokuase so far as the defendant remains not the head of the said family.
The defendant/appellant entered appearance and filed a statement of defence. He later amended his defence and in that amended defence averred at paragraph 19 thus;-
“The defendant says that as head of family he nominated, elected and enstooled Nii Amanor as Pokuase Mantse and this was endorsed by the Otublohum Divisional Council at an arbitration it established, as proper”.
The respondent in his application for directions prayed the trial court for an order striking out paragraph 19 of the amended statement of defence as it requires a determination of the validity of the nomination, election and enstoolment of the alleged Nii Amanor as the Pokuase Mantse, a matter involving Chieftaincy.
The court after listening to counsel on both sides delivered himself thus:-
“On the issue of striking out defendant’s paragraph 19 of his amended statement of defence, evidence will have to be led to prove that indeed the defendant nominated, elected, and enstooled the alleged Nii Amanor as Pokuase Mantse and that will involve going into a chieftaincy matter. As such the pleadings or amendment in paragraph 19 of the amended statement of defence is therefore struck out as a matter involving chieftaincy matter.”
The appellant said that paragraph 19, merely sought to make it possible for him to lead evidence to show acts he had performed as head of family was struck out.
Counsel for the appellant in arguing his appeal said the essence of
