Nana Kwasi Darko II v. Samuel Kpakpo Allotey & ORS
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Welbourne (Mrs), J.A. (Presiding)
- Aryene (Mrs), J.A.
- Baah, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Administrative Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal decision, authored by Baah, J.A., concerns a High Court ruling that joined Dr. B. K. Kuma (Respondent)—who claims the Mantse title of Mayera-Owuraman—as a 7th Defendant to a civil land suit initiated by the gazetted chief of the Mayera Owuraman Stool (Appellant). The Appellant sought recovery of possession and a perpetual injunction over stool lands. The appellate court held that the substantive reliefs did not constitute chieftaincy matters and any chieftaincy issue was collateral. Drawing on Supreme Court authority, the court treated entries in the National Register of Chiefs as administrative but presumptive evidence of title, and found the Appellant’s gazettation decisive given the Respondent’s lack of registration and absence of any challenge to the gazette. Applying Order 4 Rule 9(1), the court concluded the Appellant had capacity to represent the stool. It found the High Court misapplied joinder principles; set aside the joinder, dis-joined the Respondent, and awarded GHS 5,000 costs.
BAAH, J.A
INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereafter Appellant) instituted the instant action in his capacity as the chief of Mayera Owuraman Stool on 17th March 2020. The reliefs he seeks jointly and severally against the Defendants, and which are relevant to this appeal, will be laid out in due course. Before hostilities could begin between Appellant and Defendants, the Applicant/Respondent (hereafter Respondent), bearing the same name as Appellant save that his “Kwasi” begins with an “A” (Akwasi), and known in private life as Dr. B. K. Kuma, applied to join the suit as 7th Defendant. The application was backed by 1st Defendant, but resolutely opposed by Appellant.
In its ruling of 20th July 2020, the trial court granted the application and constituted the Respondent the 7th Defendant. Appellant’s grieve against the ruling resulted in the instant appeal. The appeal has slated for our determination as to whether the joinder of Respondent who claims the same chiefly status and capacity as the Appellant, raises a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, which is a statutorily forbidden territory for the trial High Court.
Secondly, we are to determine as between the Appellant who is a gazetted chief of Mayera Owuraman Stool with his name on the National Register of Chiefs, and Respondent, whose claim to the same status and capacity is founded on his affidavit evidence of prior enstoolment and recognition by the Ga Traditional Council, has capacity to sue and be sued in respect of Mayera Owuraman Stool Lands. The legal context for our determination is the proper criteria for determining whether a suit raises a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, and as to the proper standards precedent for joining a party to a suit.
We will first state out the grounds of appeal before their determination. It is noted that whereas counsel for Appellant filed his written submission on 1st February 2021, there was no record of a written submission by Respondent or his counsel at the time the record of appeal was taken for judgment.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The two grounds of appeal are as follows:
a. The trial court erred in law when it failed to hold that the application by the applicant/Respondent to be joined to the suit raises matters of chieftaincy which the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine but went ahead to join applicant/Respondent as the 7th defendant in the suit.
b. The trial court erred in law in failing to hold that the Plaintiff/Appella