NII BOYE JOHN & ORS v. NII BOYE KUMAH & ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Customary Law
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims and upheld the 1st Defendant as the substantive head of the Ashia We family and the 4th Defendant as the Asafoatse Omrugu. The Plaintiffs' objections based on the Defendants being stranger settlers and other grounds were found to be without merit.
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
[1] I will prefix this judgment with the quote attributed to the English Judge Lord Edmund-Davies, made many years ago but often ignored. He said that “Litigation is not an activity that has contributed markedly to the happiness of mankind”. Like many people in the past the parties herein who claim to be members of the Ashia We Family of Teshie have also ignored the above statement. The parties are divided over their membership of the Ashia We family and in this suit are contesting who is the qualified Head of Family among other issues.
[2] This Court is charged with determining the legal issues surrounding their membership including a declaration that there is no substantive head of Ashia We and that the 1st Defendant was only appointed as a caretaker head of family of Ashia We and not its head and whether or not two divisions, that is Badu Anuaku and Nii Adjei Osabu Kwao constitute Ashia We or four divisions constitute Ashia We. Unfortunately, in the opinion of the Court this judgment may likely not resolve the internal conflict over their membership of the Ashia We of Teshie. Ultimately, in the Court’s opinion it is only the members of the Ashis We Family themselves who collectively, must resolve to settle their conflict by working within the framework of their history, custom and this judgment to let peace prevail as members of the same family.
[3] That being said, I note that this case was transferred to this Court by the hand of the Chief Justice when it was partly-heard before Obimpe J (as he then was). I also note that when the matter came to this Court due to the lack of availability of all of the proceedings, the matter could not be heard immediately. Ultimately, some of the witnesses had to be recalled for their evidence to be retaken. From the available proceedings and based on the dates of adjournments it looks as if some of the proceedings are still missing. For instance on June 13, 2014 the Court adjourned the suit to be continued on 17 and 18, July 2014 but there is no record of what happened. The next available proceedings is dated April 2, 2015. I note that when the Court inquired from Counsel both of whom have been engaged in the matter from its inception they said none of the proceedings was missing and so we proceeded. In order for one to understand the claims made I shall set out in detail the pleadings filed by the parties.
ii. The Plaintiffs Reliefs & Claim:
[4] The Plaintiffs claim against the D