AGONA SWEDRU High Court has dismissed an application brought by the Head of Tumpa Anona family of Winneba, Nana Kow Mensah-King in a longstanding chieftaincy dispute.
The Otuano Royal House had obtained judgment from the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs on June 30, 1977, as the sole traditional ‘set up’ with the capacity and right to enstool and destool the paramount chief of Winneba.
However, plaintiff in the case Nana Kow Mensah-King brought the matter to the High Court to have the 1977 judgment set aside on the main ground that his Tumpa Anona family was not heard on the case that went before the Judicial Committee.
Responding to the case, the defendants, Otuano Royal House of Winneba contested the position taken by the plaintiff and filed an application to have the action struck out or dismissed under Article 274 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 28 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).
The court presided over by Justice Anthony K. Yeboah in its ruling disagreed with defendant’s application that it lacked the jurisdiction to dabble in chieftaincy matters and that the Court of Appeal having confirmed the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs, the High Court could not overturn the 1977 judgment.
Touching on the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, the court said the Tumpa Anona family was very much aware of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee involving Kow Gyan-Panin and Tufuhene Ankwandoh and others.
It said the plaintiff was very much aware of the issues before the Judicial Committee which included the plaintiff’s own pleading for the court to determine as to “whether or not the Royal Stool House of Otuano is the stool house entitled to perform the customary rites for estoolment and destoolment of the Omanhene of Effutu Traditional Area.
“Whether or not the Otuano Royal Stool house is the only institutional set-up entitled by custom to perform rites in respect of the destoolment of Nana Ghartey V.”
The court indicated the plaintiff was clearly aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee, “the issues for determination and evidence before the Judicial Committee”.
It pointed out that the two issues, which the plaintiff pleaded, were definitely determined by the Judicial Committee in the 1977 judgment whereby the Otuano Royal House became the sole royal house responsible for the enstoolment and destoolment of the Paramount Chief of Winneba, adding “these are res judicata.”
The plaintiff, the court maintained, was not able to show that Tumpa Anona family was unaware of the proceedings neither was he able to show that his family had any evidence to put before the court “which did not exist in or about 1977 when the judgment of the Judicial Committee was delivered and which evidence, with due and reasonable diligence, the Tumpa Anona family could not have come by”.
Striking out the plaintiff’s case, the trial judge stated he had thoroughly read the 1977 judgment, emphasising that “I have nothing in the statement of claim that demonstrate to me that the judgment is wrong.”
Before the ruling, the court had declared Article 274 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 28of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) as irrelevant and proceeded to hear the case under Order 11 (18) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47, particularly Rule 18 (1) (d) on abuse of the process of the Court.
The rule, according to the court, required that the judicial power must not be used improperly and must always be used bona fide and properly.
