January 27, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal judgment, authored by Justice Angelina M. Domakyaareh JA with Poku-Acheampong JA and Eric Baah JA agreeing, arises from litigation over land and compensation connected to the Bui Hydroelectric Power Project and the status of the claimant as chief of Dokakyina. Edward Kwadwo Kumah sued in 2011 asserting he was the occupant of the Dokakyina Stool and sought declarations over 57,176.86 hectares, compensation from the Government of Ghana under E.I. 70, and injunctions and damages against Bui National Park and the Department of Game and Wildlife. The Government’s acquisition necessitated resettlement; thirty of 36 households moved while six households led by Kumah refused. The High Court dismissed the suit in July 2013, finding Kumah lacked capacity to sue as chief. On appeal, the court reiterated that capacity is a threshold issue: the Appellant admitted he was not recognized by any Traditional Council or Regional House of Chiefs, and evidence from the Brong Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs and the Banda Paramount Chief confirmed that Nana Kofi Asah was the recognized chief. The appellate court held the trial judge did not engage in a chieftaincy cause but properly determined capacity, upheld admissibility of Exhibit 7, and concluded it could not grant substantive reliefs once capacity failed. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s ruling affirmed.
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.), JA:
[1] We have before us, an appeal from the Ruling of the High Court, Sunyani, dated 8th July, 2013. The Plaintiff/Appellant will hereinafter be called the Appellant for ease of reference and the Defendants/Respondents will hereinafter be called the Respondents. The Appellant issued a Writ of Summons accompanied by a Statement of Claim against the Respondents on 3/6/2011 in which he stated in the Heading of the Writ that he is the chief of Dokakyina and that he is suing in his capacity as the occupant of the Dokakyina Stool and Head of the Dokakyina Traditional Area. He also averred in his Statement of Claim that until his elevation to the status of a chief of Dokakyina, he was the Krontihene of Dokakyina. He claimed the following reliefs:
RELIEFS:
a. Declaration that fifty seven thousand, one hundred and seventy six point eight-six hectares of the entire Bui Hydroelectric Power Project land falls within the Plaintiff’s stool land.
b. An order of the honorable court compelling the Government of Ghana to pay compensation to the plaintiff’s stool, which said stool would/shall hold whatever compensation in trust for the subjects of the stool who have been affected by the acquisition of the land by the Government of Ghana for the BUI HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT as calculated and recommended by MESSRS A.K. BAFFOE AND CO. LTD and also compensation for the unlawful possession of Dokakyina stool land by the Department of GAME AND WILDLIFE.
c. Declaration that, the purported re-location of the Plaintiff and his subjects for settlement on a land belonging to a different stool, BUT NOT settling or resettling them on their own ancestral stool land amounts to the breach of natural justice, unfairness and unjust, perverse and gross violation of the plaintiff and his subjects fundamental, constitutional, etc rights.
d. Declaration that, L.I. 710 of 1971 setting up the Bui National Park which was gazetted on 20th September 1971 DOES NOT include DOKAKYINA stool land.
e. An order of perpetual injunction.
f. Further orders
g. General damages for trespass by officials of BUI NATIONAL PARK unto the Plaintiffs stool land
[2] The Respondents, in their respective Statements of Defence, resisted the claims of the Appellant and first raised the issue of his capacity to institute the suit by challenging same. The Respondents averred, among others that the Appellant has never been elevated as the chief of Dokakyina and that there is still a substantive