…Court Tells Kwashie Gborlor IV & Others
An Accra High Court has in a latest ruling warned Humphery Dzator Botchway, (Kwashie Gborlor IV) a. k. a Koforidua, claimant to the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool desist from selling the Stool lands and making use of the proceeds without accounting to the community “even if the 1st Defendant (Humphery Dzator Botchway) is the Mantse of Ngleshie Amanfro as he claims.
Justice Stephen H. Ocran, Justice of the High Court, Lands Division, who presided over a case with Suit No. LD/1362/16 between Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II, legitimate Ngleshie Amanfro Mantse & 11 others as Plaintiffs and Humphery Dzator Botchway, the destooled Ngleshie Amanfro Mantse and 10 others as Defendants, stated in his ruling that some of the Defendants teamed up with Kwashie Gborlor IV and considered the land to be family land and dealt with it as such.
“Now that the land has been declared as Stool land, the same persons cannot be permitted to continue to dissipate the Stool land and make use of revenue from it, under the guise that the 1st Defendant, Kwashie Gborlor IV is the Mantse,” he said.
The Case
The Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Summons against the Defendants, Kwashie Gborlor IV the destooled Chief and others, seeking a declaration from the Court that per the Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Accra, dated the 12th day of April 2013 in suit Number SOL/12/09 any grant, alienation or disposition made without the consent and concurrence of the principal members and elders of the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool is null, void and of no legal effect.
Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II and his people also prayed the Court to give an order setting aside all such grants, alienation and dispositions of Ngleshie Amanfro Stool land including those which have been backdated and falsified and were made by the 1st Defendant, Kwashie Gborlor IV acting in collusion with the Defendants between 2011 to date without the consent and concurrence of the principal members and elders of the Stool and in contravention of the Judgment in suit number SOL/12/09.
The Plaintiffs also demanded from the Court an order directed at the Chief Registrar of the Lands Commission and the Land Title Registry, upon the setting aside any registration made by the Defendants and to cancel and expunge from their records any such grants, leases and conveyances which have already been registered or are pending registration.
They also sought for an alternative order directing all persons or grantees of Ngleshie Amanfro Stool Lands whose grants were secured from the Defendants to revert to the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool for regularization and proper documentation to ensure compliance with the Judgment in Suit Number SOL/12/09.
An order of the Court setting aside as null, void and of no effect the statutory declaration dated 31st day of March 2016, made by the Defendants as members of the Kwashie Gborlor/Akramanaa family and further order restraining the Defendants herein as members of the Kwashie Gborlor/Akramanaa family from falsely holding themselves out as the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool or legitimately constituting themselves into the Ngleshie Amanfor Stool Council, and an order of Perpetual Injunction to restrain each of the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, servants or assigns from either alienating, conveying, disposing of or making any such authorized grants of Ngleshie Amanfro Stool lands.
Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II and the other Plaintiffs also sought for an order directed at the Defendants to render to the Stool and people of Ngleshie Amanfro a true and proper accounts of all monies or payments received or realized by themselves, their servants, assigns, agents from their unauthorized and unlawful grants of Ngleshie Amanfro Stool Lands.
The Defendants Responses
However, the Defendants led by the destooled Kwashie Girlie whose name has been deleted from the National Register of Chiefs in their application prayed that this suit files by the Plaintiffs be struck out for want of jurisdiction as it is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
According to them the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case as filed by the Plaintiffs hence must be struck out.
But the Plaintiffs respondents have resisted the application and deposed that the Plaintiffs action is not a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, and that the mere fact that matters relating to are bordering on chieftaincy appears in the parties’ pleadings does not necessarily render it a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
The Plaintiffs indicated in their Statement of claim of which the 1st Plaintiff, Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II, Ngleshie Amanfro Mantse and current occupant of the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool Stated that they have collectively instituted the action for themselves and on behalf of the people of Ngleshie Amanfro for the protection of Ngleshie Amanfro lands.
The plaintiffs also pleaded that seven of them together with five other persons instituted action at the High Court Accra in respect of Ngleshie Amanfro lands, against some persons which include five of the present defendants and had judgment in respect of Ngleshie Amanfro lands. The defendants however admitted to this pleading of the plaintiffs.
The other plaintiffs are the Stool Secretary, Oshipi, Principal Members, Elders and family heads of the families and clans that constitute the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool but the defendants again denied capacities that the plaintiffs claimed to possess.
The Court upheld that the onus lies on the plaintiffs to proof their capacities at the trial, but stated that apart from the 1st Plaintiff who may have to lead evidence on how he became a chief, which may border on nomination, election and installation of a chief, which the court has no jurisdiction, “the court has jurisdiction to listen to evidence of the other plaintiffs, on the capacity they claim, since it has nothing to do with chieftaincy.”
It emerged that before the ruling in Suit Number SOL/12/09, which declared Ngleshie Amanfro lands as Stool lands, the lands were said to be family lands and the defendants teamed up to fraudulently dessipate the land without rendering accounts to the people of Ngleshie Amanfro.
According to Justice Stephen H. Ocran “Since the 1st Plaintiff, Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II in the suit for which judgment had been delivered, I believe even if the 1st Plaintiff is not the chief of Ngleshie Amanfro he is a principal member/elder of Ngleshie Amanfro as found in Exhibit A1 being the judgment of Justice Anthony Oppong. He, the 1st Plaintiff Nii Akramah Nyonmor Bei II together with other plaintiffs should not sit down unconcerned and fold their arms and look unconcerned when the land is being dissipated by persons who before the judgment above referred to were using it as their family land.”
The trial judge also pointed out that the main issue concerns preservation of the land for which a court of competent jurisdiction has given judgment, and how the revenue from that land should be used by the community as a whole.
Although the 1st Defendant (Humphery Dzator Botchway aka Koforidua) said he was not party in the previous suit, but some of the defendants were parties in that suit.
“Now that the land has been declared as Stool land, the same persons cannot be permitted to continue to dissipate the Stool land and make use of revenue from it, under the guise that the 1st Defendant is the Mantse. It is because of this that the writ has been issued,” the judge ruled.
“Again the issue set down for determination shows clearly that the issues at stake have nothing to do with chieftaincy,” the judge stated and mentioned that the issues set down for determination were whether or not the defendants have unlawfully amended records pertaining to the rightful signatories to the lands, whether the National House of chiefs deleted the names of the 1st Defendant Kwashie Gborlor IV from the Gazette and expunge same from the national register of chiefs, and whether the defendants have illegitimately constituted themselves into the Ngleshie Amanfro Stool Council among others.
The judge said: “Considering the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in this suit and the issues agreed on to be resolved, I am of the view that this suit is not one affecting chieftaincy.”
Justice Stephen H. Ocran ruled that the plaintiffs’ writ of summons is not a cause of matter affecting chieftaincy and therefore dismissed the application brought by the Defendants and awarded cost of GHC2, 000. 00 against the Defendants applicants.
By PROSPER AGBENYEGA