NANA NYAMEKEH BOADI II & ANOTHER v. MARK JACKSON & ANOTHER
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- C. J. HONYENUGA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- D. D. ADJEI, J.A.
- B. F. ACKA-YENSU (MS), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Intellectual Property Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court dismissed an application by the 1st defendant/appellant to strike out a claim brought by the plaintiffs/respondents, seeking an injunction against the appellant's use of a particular stool name. The High Court ruled that there was a reasonable cause of action, leading to the appellant filing an appeal. In the appeal, the court reviewed whether the respondents had proprietary rights to the name and whether customary law could protect the exclusive use of the name. The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling. Several previous cases and statutes were reviewed to establish that proprietary rights to a name can only be protected through statutory registration.
HONYENUGA, J. A.
This is an appeal by the 1st defendant/appellant against the decision of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 25th day of July 2011. The said decision dismissed the 1st defendant/appellant’s application to strike out the plaintiffs/respondents’ action on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and for a further order dismissing the action.
The facts of this appeal is that the 1st defendant/appellant was installed as the Paramount Chief of Eastern Nzema under the respondents who are the Chiefs of Awiaso and head of the Royal Nvavile Clan of Awiaso all in the Eastern Nzema respectively insist that no ancestor from the 1st defendant/appellant’s family ever bore the stool name that the 1st defendant/appellant had assumed.
The plaintiffs/respondents also insist that that stool name is peculiar or alien to only their royal stool family and if the 1st defendant should be allowed to use same, it would create chaos since they are all from Eastern Nzema.
Failure of the 1st defendant/appellant to stop using the said stool name compelled the plaintiffs/respondents to issue out a writ of summons claiming as follows: -“i. An order for a declaration that Amihere Kpanyinli the founder of Nzemaland was necessarily an Nvavile and thus the name cannot lawfully be borrowed, appropriated, copied, adopted or assumed by a non-Nvavile Royal.
An order for a declaration that the 1st defendant has never had any two earlier occupants on his Ngweafo (Aduana) Stool by the name Amihere Kpanyinli and can therefore not claim to be Amihere Kpanyinli III as same would connote fraud and deception.
An order compelling the 1st defendant to drop the disputed name.
An order directed at the 2nd defendant to restrain it from registering or recognizing the 1st defendant unless he has dropped the said name.
v. Perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st defendant and his successors in title, privies, trustees and all deriving title through him from annexing, taking or going by the stool name Amihere Kpanyinli.
An order for a declaration that it is against customary law for a chief to assume a name that is unrelated to its own family but wrongfully taken from a rival family stool.
Damages for trespass.
Cost of this suit.
The writ was accompanied by 41 paragraph statement of claim and an application for injunction.
The 1st defendant/appellant entered an appearance and later followed it up with a motion to strike out pleadings and to dismiss the action under