1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Supreme Court addressed a chieftaincy dispute over the Krobo (Kwabre) Stool involving three lineages: the Plaintiffs Asona family from Beposo in Ashanti, the Defendants Asona family from Akyem Adesina, and the Ekuona family represented by Alhaji Kwaku Kru. After the Kumasi Traditional Council ruled for the Defendant and the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs reversed, the National House of Chiefs unanimously reinstated the trial tribunals decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court majority (Adjabeng, Atuguba, and Akuffo JJ.S.C.) dismissed the appeal, emphasising appellate deference and the method of testing conflicting traditional histories by recent acts. The Court relied on evidence of ancestral black stools from the Akyem Asona and Ekuona among Krobos stools and prior ascension of S.K. Mainoo (Ekuona), concluding that the Krobo stool was validly created for joint occupation by Asona and Ekuona and that naming Gyamera Bensua did not conclusively establish founder. Two justices (Hayfron-Benjamin, presiding, and Ampiah JJ.S.C.) dissented, would have allowed the appeal and held the stool exclusive to the Plaintiffs lineage.
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