NANA KOW MENSAH KING & ORS v. OPANIN KWEKU KYIKYIBI GYAN
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADINYIRA (MRS.), JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- AKAMBA, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the Appellant's suit on jurisdictional grounds related to chieftaincy. The Court of Appeal acted correctly in invoking the principle that appeal is by way of rehearing and examining jurisdictional issues. It was determined that once a jurisdictional issue is unanswerable, there is no need for further legal argument. The principles established include the appellate court's duty to scrutinize evidence, the nature of appeals as rehearings, and the court's ability to address jurisdictional issues sua sponte.
ADINYIRA JSC:
The Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant (Appellant) on 18th of October, 2012 issued a writ of Summons with statement of claim at the High Court against defendant/Respondent/Respondent (Respondent”) for the following reliefs:
A declaration that the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs in so far as it purportedly made a finding of fact that the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld as raising issues estoppels against the party the issue was determined against and privies without giving the Ayirebi Acquahs and for that matter the Tumpa Anona Family members the right of hearing breached the principles of natural justice.
An order to set aside the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs that purported to determine issues that directly affect the interest of the Ayirebi Acquahs and the Tumpa Anona Royal Family of Winneba without giving the family a hearing.
Cost.
On 9 November, 2012, Respondent filed application before the trial court to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was a matter affecting chieftaincy.
The Appellant resisted the application by filling affidavit in opposition. Counsel for the parties filed written addresses for hearing of the application.
On the 17 June, 2013, the learned judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was an abuse of process but not that it was a matter affecting chieftaincy as raised by the Defendant. Being aggrieved of the ruling, Appellant filed appeal before the Court of Appeal on the 18th day of July, 2013 against the ruling.
On the 12 June, 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the High Court dismissing the suit but on grounds of jurisdiction that the suit was a matter affecting chieftaincy. The Court held:
“All the other grounds of appeal raised by the plaintiff are without merits and they should fail. Jurisdiction goes to the root of the suit and once there is no jurisdiction we shall affirm the conclusion by the trial judge dismissing the suit but with different reasons stated in the judgment.”
On the 13th day of August, 2014, Appellant filed the instant appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 3 grounds. However in his statement of case filed on 20 October, 2014, Counsel for the Appellant argued only the first ground of the appeal stating he abandoned the two grounds because the one ground is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.
That ground argued by Counsel for Appel