NANA EFFAH POAKWAA II & ANOTHER v. KOFI DANKWA & ANOTHER
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- CECILIA SOWAH, JA (PRESIDING)
- ANTHONY OPPONG, JA
- ANGELINA MENSAH HOMIAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Nana Effah Poakwaa II, Queen Mother of Senchi, and Kofi Pobi, regent and caretaker of Adome Stool lands, sued Kofi Dankwa and Reverend Alexander Kwaku Obeng Oguamenah over Adome lands, asserting they belong to the Senchi Stool. The High Court dismissed the suit for want of capacity; Nana Effah Poakwaa II appealed. The Court of Appeal, per Justice Anthony Oppong, reframed the dispute around two issues: the existence of a substantive occupant of the Senchi Stool and the applicability to stool land of family-land exceptions such as those in KWAN v Nyieni and In Re Ashalley Botwe. Affidavit evidence showed Nana Ofei Addo Agyeman II was the occupant, and a pending destoolment petition did not render the stool vacant. Emphasizing that a stool is a corporate sole, the Court held that only the occupant can sue over stool property, with limited vacancy-based roles for a regent or caretaker, and affirmed summary dismissal, dismissing the appeal.
ANTHONY OPPONG, JA:
On or about 10th August 2020, Nana Effah Poakwaa II (1st plaintiff/appellant herein) and Kofi Pobi (the 2nd plaintiff) sued Kofi Dankwa and Kwaku Dwamena (this name was later amended to read Reverend Alexander Kwaku Obeng Oguamenah) for reliefs concerning Adome lands. Essentially, the plaintiffs’ claim was that Adome lands are owned by Senchi Stool.
In the said action, Nana Effah Poakwaa II described herself as the queen mother of Senchi and it was in that capacity that she instituted the action. Kofi Pobi was also described as the regent and caretaker of Adome Stool lands and it was in that capacity that he also pursued the claim. In effect, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in their respective capacities as the queen mother of Senchi Stool and regent of Adome stool. It is worthwhile to add that in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim plaintiffs indicated that they brought the action “for and on behalf of the Senchi Stool since there are rival claims in respect of the occupancy of the Senchi Stool and the necessity to bring the instant action to protect Senchi Stool property”
To this action, Reverend Alexander Kwaku Obeng Oguamena (the 2nd defendant/respondent) filed a statement of defence and counterclaim on 24th November 2020. Two days later, that is, on the 26th November 2020, the 2nd defendant/respondent (to be referred to hereafter as respondent) filed an application to dismiss the action of plaintiffs on the main ground that plaintiffs lack the requisite capacity to have mounted the action.
The trial court on the 17th June 2021 dismissed the plaintiffs’ action for want of capacity. The ruling of the trial court is at pages 121-131 of the record of appeal (ROA).
Dissatisfied with the said ruling, the 1st plaintiff/appellant (hereafter to be referred to as appellant) filed notice of appeal on the 28th June 2021 with the following grounds of appeal:
a. The trial judge erred in law and in fact in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for want of capacity of the plaintiffs on the ground that there is a chief at Senchi who has to sue
b. The trial judge erred in law in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for want of capacity of the plaintiffs when the 2nd plaintiff sued as a caretaker
c. The trial judge erred in law and in fact in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for want of capacity of the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs have sued on grounds of necessity
d. The trial court lacked the jurisdiction to summarily dismiss the suit based on t