NANA TAKYI ABIA II v. THE PRESIDENT, C.R.H.C & ORS
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- IRENE CHARITY LARBI (MRS.), JA (PRESIDING)
- GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), JA
- YAW DARKO ASARE, JA
Areas of Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Civil Procedure
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Authored by Georgina Mensah-Datsa, JA, this Court of Appeal decision arises from an appeal against the High Court, Cape Coasts dismissal of a suit seeking to set aside a customary arbitral award. The dispute concerned a rehabilitated cocoa farm at Jukwa Mbem; a three-member arbitration committee, constituted by the Central Region House of Chiefs on the 3rd Respondents petition to recover stool property after the Appellants abdication, ruled the farm is reserved for occupants of the stool. On appeal, the court held that under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), challenges to customary awards must be brought by application (motion) within three months. The Appellant used a writ and filed five years after the award. Emphasizing that procedure is part of the law and jurisdictional and limitation issues are threshold matters, the court dismissed the appeal and declined to reach the merits.
GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (MRS.), JA
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 26th November, 2019 dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellant’s case against the Defendants/ Respondents.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
a. That the judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.
b. That the Court below erred in applying the grounds and procedural time line in Section 112 of Act 798 as a procedural bar to the Plaintiff’s issuance of a Writ to set aside the Arbitration Decision.
c. That the Court below erred in not setting aside the Arbitration Decision after finding that the subject matter before the Arbitration Committee was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Traditional Council.
d. That the Court below erred in not setting aside the Arbitration Decision after holding that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent by itself had no original jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
e. That the Court below erred in law in failing to distinguish the facts and decision in the Supreme Court case of Mansa v. Adutwumwaa [2013-14] 1 SCGLR 38 from the facts of the instant suit.
Particulars of Error
i. The Court below failed to appreciate that the mode of initiating the proceedings in the Mansa v. Adutwumwaa (supra) case by swearing of the Great Oath of the Otumfuo was entirely different from the mode of initiating proceedings in the instant matter being the filing of a Petition.
ii. The Court below failed to consider the Supreme Court’s dictum in Mansa v. Adutwumwaa (supra) on the unique position of the Asantehene, sitting in Council with his Paramount Chiefs and other chiefs which has been given statutory recognition in Section 58 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) as opposed to the status of the arbitration committee in this suit.
f. That the trial Judge erred when he relied on Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A” and the Heading of the Arbitration Decision to find that the Petition of the 3rd Defendant was meant to be arbitrated upon and not for the Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs.
g. Additional grounds will be filed pursuant to leave granted upon receipt of the Record of Appeal.
The Appellant seeks from this Court that the decision of the High Court be set aside and judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant on the reliefs sought on the Writ.
The facts of this matter are that the Plaintiff/Appellant is the Ex-C