NANA ANYAMAH KYEREWA II v. NANA ASIEDU AKORA II & ANOTHER

MENSAH-HOMIAH, (J. A.):

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Koforidua dated 7th March, 2017. By a writ of summons and statement of claim issued from the High Court on 10thAugust, 2016, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter simply referred to as the Plaintiff), claimed against the Defendants/Applicants/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 1st /2nd Defendants), the following reliefs:

a) An Order of the Court directing the 1st Defendant to share income accruing to the stool with Plaintiff.

b) An order of the Court directing the 1st Defendant to share benefits received from the 2nd Defendant upon the terms agreed on.

c) An order of the Court for the 1st Defendant to fully imburse Plaintiff of her share of monies received from 2nd Defendant since…

d) An Order of the Court restraining 2nd Defendant from paying any money entitled to the Ntronang stool without the involvement of Plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff describes herself as the Queenmother of Akyem Ntronang, and the 1st Defendant as the Chief of the same town. It is alleged that the Plaintiff was enstooled as Queenmother of Ntronang sometime in 1981 and has duly been gazetted. The 2nd Defendant is a mining company which owns a Concession on Akyem Ntronang Stool Land. Besides Royalties, the 2nd Defendant pays monies annually to the stools in its catchment area including Akyem Ntronang. It has been said that per an arrangement between the parties and the Queenmother of Akyem Kotoku, monies, not being Royalties, received from the 2nd Defendant are to be shared between the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant, elders of the stool and the community in agreed proportions. It has also been alleged that the 1st Defendant failed to give the Plaintiff her due share of the monies after receiving the said monies from the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant has been sued to prevent it from paying any such monies to the 1st Defendant without notice to the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant did not deny the fact of payments received from the 2nd Defendant, but alleged that the Plaintiff is not the current Queenmother of Akyem Ntronang for her to lay claim to monies accruing to the stool.

The 1st Defendant then filed an application to set aside the Plaintiff’s writ for reason of lack of jurisdiction. It was argued on his behalf that, since the Court would be required to decide whether or not the Plaintiff is the Queenmother of Akyem Ntronang, that determination would amount to the Court entertain