SASU v. DIAWUO
1916
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR SIR PHILIP CRAMPTON SMYLY, KNIGHT, CHIEF JUSTICE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Probate and Succession
1916
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Following the death of Ohene Kwesi Eminakwa, five traditional leaders from Obo, Asakraka, Pitiko, and Obomeng sought legal control over the Obomeng stool against six defendants including former Omanhene Kwasi Diawuo II and Yao Mensah. They initially alleged wrongful removal of the stool to Abene and claimed damages, later amending the writ to assert custodial rights under Native Custom until Ohene Kwaku Warri could be installed. Chief Justice Crampton Smyly recounted the applicable customs governing stool custody and instoolment, noted community divisions between the Adaafua and Adaa families, and found no evidence of removal. He held that plaintiffs failed to prove any collective entitlement, and that Warri’s individual right would arise only upon instoolment. The court ordered a nonsuit, granting Warri liberty to bring a fresh action upon obtaining a statement under section 7 of the Chiefs Ordinance No. 4 of 1904.
In this case the Plaintiffs are respectively
(1) Kwamin Sasu, Nifahene of Obo.
(2) Ohene Kwasi Fosu, Ohene of Asakraka.
(3) Odikro Kwajo Kwatchi of Pitiko.
(4) Ohene Kwaku Warri of Obomeng.
(5) Mankralo Ampadu of Obomeng.
The Defendants are
(1) Omanhene Kwasi Diawuo II since alleged to have been destooled
(2) Yao Mensah alleged to have been put on the stool of Obomen by the Defendant Kwasi Diawuo II.
(3) Kwadjo Antwi.
(4) Kwabina Pomone.
(5) Kwadjo Gyakye.
(6) Linguist Kwamin Che in whose hands the stool of Obomen is alleged to have been placed by the Nifahene of Obo according to custom on the death of the late Ohene Kwasi Eminakwa.
The Plaintiffs originally claimed a return to them of the stool of Obomeng, wrongly removed by the Defendants from Obomeng to Abene, and £500 damages for such wrongful removal. At the trial the writ was amended as follows " as persons who according to Native Custom are entitled to the " custody possession and control of the stool of Obomeng from the date of the "death of Kwesi Eminakwa late Ohene of Obomeng until the new Ohene "Kwaku Warri is put on the actual stool of Obomeng." On the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case the Defendants have asked for a nonsuit on the following grounds
(1) No evidence stool removed to Abene at all
No evidence that any of the Plaintiffs are persons entitled to the custody of the stool.
Before going into the alleged facts of this case, I propose to refer to the custom on the death of the Ohene of Obomeng as to the custody of the stool put forward by the Plaintiffs, merely mentioning in passing, that the Defendants dispute the accuracy of the custom as put forward by the Plaintiffs. In the lifetime of a Chief, the Chief himself Jooks after the stool, it is in his house. On his death, the stool and the paraphernalia is in the proper custody with the prince by blood and the Wirempis under him-Wirempis meaning the elders who support the stool but are not of the royal blood. The Prince and Wirempis retain the stool until a successor has been properly appointed.
The custom as to the instoolment as alleged is as follows :-The Mankralo summons a meeting of the elders to select a successor. The Ohemia or Queen Mother is then sent for, and names one of the Royal Blood, the Linguist then informs the elders who if they agree, send to catch the person named, who is then raised on their shoulders and white clay put on him, the person named is then presented to the Nifahene and the Ohenes of the