1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around the dispute over eligibility to the Krobo Stool in Ashanti. The Plaintiff challenged the Defendant's eligibility, and the case went through multiple layers of judicial scrutiny beginning from the Kumasi Traditional Council, which ruled in favor of the Defendant. This decision was overturned by the Ashanti Region House of Chiefs, reinstating the Plaintiff's claim. The Defendant then appealed to the National House of Chiefs, which reversed the Regional House's decision. Ultimately, the case was appealed again, resulting in the Court siding with the Plaintiff and reinstating the judgment of the Ashanti Region House of Chiefs. Key issues centered around the interpretation and application of customary law and the evaluation of historical evidence.
C. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chieftaincy Committee of the National House of Chiefs wherein Nananom reversed the judgment of the Ashanti Region House of Chiefs and thereby affirmed the judgment of the Kumasi Traditional Council. For the purposes of this appeal the Appellant will hereafter be called the Plaintiff and the Respondent the Defendant.
The Plaintiff by the oath procedure swore that
"Defendant is not to the Krobo Stool and there he (Defendant) is not eligible to the Krobo Stool and that Defendant is eligible only to the Benkum Stool of Krobo."
The Defendant also swore back in reply that
"He being the Krobohene elect and also a royal to the Krobo Stool is eligible to the Krobo Stool in view of his ancestral link to the Stool."
Upon issues joined the Judicial Committee of the Kumasi Traditional Council by a majority gave judgment for the Defendant. The Plaintiff appealed from that decision to the Judicial Committee of the Ashanti Region House of Chiefs. The Regional House of Chiefs reversed the Traditional Council. On a further appeal to the Chieftaincy Committee of the National House of Chiefs, Nananom also reversed the decision of the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the National House of Chiefs. This Court subsequently granted the Plaintiff leave to appeal to it. Before us the Plaintiff has filed five grounds of appeal four of which is substantive grounds the Plaintiff contends that;
(i) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
(ii) The National House of Chiefs misconceived its functions as a second appellate Tribunal, and erred in law in failing to give any or due weight to the unrebutted evidence that the name of the Krobo Stool was "Gyamera Bensua" Stool.
(iii) The National House of Chiefs erred in law when it purported to make findings without considering the evidence of Plaintiff/Appellant and her witnesses.
(iv) The National House of Chiefs erred in law when it held that a matrilineal stool could be CREATED for two friends of different clans.
Appellant's Counsel in his statement of case contends that:
"In this case, having conceded, as the Respondent did, that the Obaapanin's family is a royal the presumption is that this status is exclusive and the burden falls on the Respondent to establish satisfactorily how his family also became a royal house. This was really the nature of the dispute...."
When the Appellant's Counsel's submission is conjoined with the finding of Nananom of the Natio