THE ARTISINAL CANOE FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION OF CHORKOR v. ADADENTAN STOOL COUNCIL & ORS

MARIAMA OWUSU, J. A:

On 26-5-2011, the High Court, Accra, dismissed the counterclaim of the defendants and declared that, the installation of the second defendant as Chief fisherman was illegitimate.

The Court then entered judgment for the plaintiff and made the following orders:

1. “The nomination, appointment and installation are set aside.

2. The defendants are restrained from installing a chief fisherman for the plaintiff association.

3. I award cost of GH¢2, 000. 00 against the defendants jointly and severally”. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following ground: [a] The Judgment was against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.

Additional grounds of appeal will be filed when the defendants/appellants receive the record of appeal.

The background to this case is as follows: The plaintiff by its amended writ of summons and statement of claim, claim against the defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs: a. An order setting aside the appointment, intended installation of Nii Odarlai Lamptey 11 as the Chief Fisherman of the Plaintiff/Association.

b. Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants from doing anything to appoint or install any person as the Chief Fisherman of Plaintiff/Association without the due process of the law.

c. Any other relief as the court may deem fit.

In the 9 paragraph statement of claim that accompanied the writ of summons, the plaintiff averred among other things that it is a canoe-fishermen Association registered under the laws of Ghana to promote the welfare of its members whilst the 4th and 5th defendants are members of its association.

The plaintiff averred further that, 2nd defendant is the person the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants want to impose on the plaintiff as its chief fisherman.

It is the case of the plaintiff that, after the demise of its former Chief Fisherman, their kingmakers who are nine in number met to decide on the next person to be nominated and installed in his place so as to perform the final funeral rites.

According to the plaintiff, seven [7] out of the nine kingmakers settled on someone.

However the defendants have connived to impose the 2nd defendant on them despite protests and complaints from them hence this action.

In their amended statement of defence and counterclaim, the defendants denied plaintiff’s claim and put it to strict proof of its averments.

In pa