NAI KOFI AWORABI (SUBST. BY ABU KOFI LARBIE & 7 ORS vs. KOFI APPIAH (SUBST. BY ABU JOEFIO PABI MENSAH & 2 ORS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT

ACCRA- AD. 2026

CORAM: PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)

KULENDI JSC

GAEWU JSC

KWOFIE JSC

AMALEBOBA JSC

CHIEFTAINCY APPEAL

NO. J2/01/2025

24TH JUNE, 2026

NAI KOFI AWORABI

(SUBST. BY ABUS. KOFI LARBIE)

NOAH LARBI ABBEY

(SUBST. BY ABUS. KOFI LARBIE) PLAINTIFFS/

KOJO BANFO ABBEY QUAYE RESPONDENTS/

(SUBST. BY NAI KWAW AMU LARBI) APPELLANTS/

KOFI LARBI APPELLANTS

KWAO DUODU

(SUBST. BY SAMUEL PERTEY)

KOBINA NKANSAH

KWAO BENYIN

(SUBST. BY SAMUEL PERTEY)

KOFI DANKWA

(SUBST. BY ABUS. KOFI LARBIE)

VRS

KOFI APPIAH

(SUBST. BY ABUS. JOEFIO PABI MENSAH) DEFENDANTS/

FRANK BOSOMTWE ARKO APPELLANTS/

(SUBST. BY ISHMAEL PONKU) RESPONDENTS/

KWAME ARMAH TAGOE RESPONDENTS

(SUBST. BY ISAAC KWEKU ACQUAH)

J U D G M E N T

KWOFIE JSC:

The instant appeal challenges the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, Kumasi delivered on 23rd May 2024. In that judgment, the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs affirmed the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs by recognizing the Defendants/Respondents/Respondents as the heirs to the Bawjiase stool.

Pursuant to leave granted by the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs on 14th August 2024, the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants/Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have appealed to this court by a Notice of Appeal filed on 19th September, 2024 on the following grounds:

The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs erred in law in its evaluation of the conflicting traditional evidence relied upon by the parties:

Particulars of Error of Law

The Committee failed to evaluate the evidence based on such recent facts as can be established per the evidence on record.

The Committee was wrong in evaluating the evidence based on alleged contradictions in the case of the appellants and their witnesses

The Committee erred in both fact and in law in holding that the

Respondents were royals of the Bawjiase Stool

Particulars

The Respondents Status as royals having been challenged it was the respondents that bore the burden to prove otherwise

The Committee rather shifted the burden of proof of the respondents capacity as royals of the Bawjiase Stool on the appellants

The judgment is against the weight of the evidence on record.

Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of the full record of appeal

The reliefs sought from this apex court are:

An order setting aside the entire judgment of the National House of Chiefs and entering judgment in favour of the appellants

Costs

Any further order that the honourable court deems just.

The record shows that no additional grounds of appeal were filed by the appellants.

Background and Facts

The facts and background leading to the institution of the appellant’s action before the trial Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council against the respondents are that following the death of the Chief of Bawjiase Nai Obo Antwi II in 1995, the 1st appellant Nai Kofi Aworabi was made the regent of Bawjiase Stool until a substantive chief was appointed. In 1999, the 2nd respondent Frank George Bosomtwe Arko was nominated, elected, enstooled and intended to be outdoored by the 1st and 3rd respondents as chief of Bawjiase and successor to Nai Obo Antwi II. It is the 2nd respondent’s purported nomination, selection and enstoolment and intended outdooring in 1999 that sparked the instant chieftaincy litigation commenced by the appellants by Writ before the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council where the appellants sought the following reliefs:

Declaration that the purported nomination, election, installation and outdooring of 2nd defendant as chief of Bawjiase by 1st and 3rd defendants and others in 1999 is null and void. In the alternative the setting aside of the said nomination, election and installation.

A declaration that 1st Plaintiff remains the lawful regent of the Narchay Asharkor (Bawjiasehene) stool having been confirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council in its judgment/ruling dated 05/04/06.

Perpetual injunction restraining defendants, their agents servants and all persons claiming through or in trust for them from recognizing 2nd respondent as chief-elect or from undertaking any rites or ceremonies that will purport to give backing to the said nomination, election and installation.

On 28th February 2012, the trial Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council delivered judgment in favour of the Appellants. In its judgment, the committee made the following pertinent findings:

Bawjiase lands belong to Kofi Obo’s descendants and the stool should be ascended only by the descendants of Kofi Obo or Narchey Adoobi’s Gate or lineage.

The ascendency of Bawjiase Obo Twidan Stool should be with the mutual understanding and consent of the Adoobi Gate.

The Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council further made the following orders:

It is ordered that, no party, individual or member of any Gate should disturb or disrupt the ascendency of the Stool by Narchey Adoobi’s Gate.

It is further ordered that the nomination, election, installation and enstoolment of the 2nd Defendant George Frank Bosomtwe Arko as Chief of Awutu Bawjiase is null and void and has no customary and traditional basis and it should be set aside accordingly.

It is therefore the order of the Judicial Committee that the Adoobi’s Gate (Buano) should nominate, elect install and enstool a chief to ascend the Kofi Oboh Bawjiase Stool.

Cost of GH¢3,000.00 (Three Thousand Ghana Cedis) is awarded to the Plaintiffs as against the Defendants.

Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs

Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council, the Respondents appealed against the said judgment to the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs. The said Judicial Committee upheld the appeal on 26th February 2020, and held as follows amongst others,

“the stool or skin is said to belong to those who first brought it into being. This is the significance of the preference of the progenitor. Those who brought it into being are the original members of the family to which the contest should belong. Considering the analysis of Nananom at the lower court misconstrued the issue of who owns Bawjiase lands with the one with the legitimate right to ascend the stool of Bawjiase. There are stools without land in Ghana and also it is not those who own land per say that own the stool in that particular place. This misconception created in the minds of Nananom below went a long way to influence their decision which we believe upon the totality of the evidence on record together with the very admissions and contradictions in the story of the Plaintiffs the judgment of the lower court must not be allowed to stand”

The Committee in further disagreement with the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council reasoned that despite claiming that the system of succession was strictly matrilineal, the Appellants limited the succession to the descendants of Nana Kofi Oboh and his two siblings. For the Committee, this position was contradictory to the evidence on record. It expressed itself as follows at page 307 of the Record of Appeal:

“that considering the totality of the evidence on record, the present appeal is found to be of merit as same is grounded in law and ought to succeed. In the light of the above, the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council dated the 28th day of February, 2012 is hereby set aside and judgment entered in favour of the Defendants/Appellants. Costs of GH¢2,000.00 is hereby awarded in favour of the Appellants against the Respondents.”

Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs, the Appellants launched a further appeal to the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs. Per a judgment dated 23rd May 2024, the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs affirmed the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs. The appeal was thus dismissed.

In arriving at its decision, the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs made the following findings of facts:

That the Twidan Royal Family of Bawjiase trace it ancestry to Narchey Asharkoh.

That the said Narchey Asharkoh gave birth to four (4) children two (2) males and (2) females.

That the succession to the said Stool is Matrilineal.

That because succession is Matrilineal, the ascendancy to the Bawjiase stool is of two (2) gates namely Adoobi and Obledjumah.

That prior to the carving out of the Bawjiase Stool there existed three (3) Stools carved by Narchey Asharkoh, Opeikumah and Nai Djarbeng before their settlement in Bawjiase.

That the Bawjiase Stool was carved by Kwaku Anto/Osardu.

That upon the carving up of the fourth stool by Kwaku Anto at Bawjiase the three (3) previous Stools were joined to the one carved by Kwaku Anto/Osardu bringing the total to four (4) Stools.

That the first occupant of the Bawjiase Stool after the four (4) Stools have been joined together was Kwaku Anto or Osardu.

Thereafter the said Stool had been occupied by various persons with the last one being Nana Obo Antwi.

That it was after the death of Nana Obo Antwi that the 1st appellant was appointed as regent.

That 1st Respondent is the head of the overall Twidan Royal family

That the 2nd Respondent George Bosomtwe Arko is a descendant of Narchey Asharkoh who traced his lineage from the Obledjumah line.

That the first Respondent Ebusuapanyin Kofi Appiah who is the overall Ebusuapanyin of the Twidan Royal Family of Bawjiase nominated the 2nd respondent for the consideration of the kingmakers which include the Gyasehene and the like.

That the installation of the 2nd Respondent as Bawjiasehene had followed custom and usage of Bawjiase

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Still further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, the Appellants filed the instant appeal before this honourable court per a Notice of Appeal dated 19th September 2024 on the following grounds:

The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs erred in law in its evaluation of the conflicting traditional evidence relied upon by the parties

Particular of Error of Law

The Committee failed to evaluate the evidence based on such recent facts as can be established per the evidence on record

The committee was wrong in evaluating the evidence based on alleged contradictions in the case of the appellants and their witnesses.

The Committee erred in both fact and in law in holding that the Respondents were Royals of the Bawjiase Stool.

Particulars

The Respondents’ status as royals having been challenged, it was the Respondents and not the appellants that bore the burden to prove otherwise.

The committee rather shifted the burden of proof of the Respondents’ capacity as Royals of the Bawjiase Stool on the Appellants.

The judgment is against the weight of the evidence on record.

Additional grounds of appeal to be field upon receipt of the full record of appeal?

Arguments of the Appellants

In their arguments, the appellants submit that they are Kingmakers of the Bawjiase Stool and that the Kofi Oboh lineage belonging to the wider royal Twidan family is the appropriate lineage from which the occupants of the Bawjiase stool must belong. The Appellants further contended that from time immemorial, the occupants of the Bawjiase stool have always belonged to the Kofi Oboh lineage. They further argued that the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs could not therefore side step the entrenched customary practice and traditions that pertains to heirs to the Bawjiase Stool and discount the Kofi Oboh lineage. The Appellants further submitted that the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs did not properly evaluate the conflicting traditional evidence on record in accordance with established precedent and principles which if properly evaluated would reveal that all the recent facts pertaining to the Bawjiase stool favoured the appellants’ Kofi Oboh lineage. They finally submitted that the 2nd respondent does not belong to the royal family and he is therefore disqualified from being the occupant of the Bawjiase stool as his ancestors were migrants who migrated from Ekumfi and were adopted and accepted into the royal family for their services rendered to the family.

Arguments of Respondents

On the other hand, the respondents in support of their case argued that the appellants failed to prove that the Bawjiase stool which was of matrilineal descent belonged exclusively to the decendants of Kofi Oboh who was not a female member of the family. They further argued that the appellants also failed to prove on the preponderance of the probability that the 2nd respondent who is the descendant of Nai Kwaku Osardu alias Anto Kwaku was not of the royal Twidan family of Bawjiase. The respondent submitted that the contention by the appellants that a chief of Bawjiase can only be from the Adoobi gate is contrary to the appellants’ own case that it is descendants of Narchey Asharkoh who can be enstooled in Bawjiase. The respondents added that descendants of Narchey Asharkoh is not synonymous to the descendants of Nai Kofi Oboh, but includes the descendants of both Adoobi and Obledjumah

Issues for Determination

Going through the record of appeal, it seems clear that the fundamental issue for determination in this appeal and throughout this case is which is the rightful or correct lineage from which the occupant of the Bawjiase stool is nominated?

Before making that determination however, it is necessary to note that the appellants in their notice of appeal have set down the omnibus ground of appeal that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and also asserted that the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs did not properly evaluate the conflicting traditional evidence relied upon by the parties. In the case of Abbey Vs Antwi V (2010) SCGLR 17 at page 34-35, Dotse JSC stated the following as the principle in the determination of appeals in which the appellant alleges that the judgment is against the weight of evidence:

“it is now trite learning that where an appellant alleges that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, the appellate court is under an obligation to go through the entire record of appeal to satisfy itself that a party’s case was more probable that not”.

In Tuakwa vs. Bosom (2001-2002) SCGLR 61 at 65 Sophia Akuffo JSC (as she then was) observed as follows:

“An appeal is by way of rehearing, particularly where the appellant alleges in his notice of appeal that, the decision of the trial court is against the weight of evidence. In such a case, it is incumbent upon an appellate court in a civil case to analyse the entire record of appeal, take into account the testimonies and all documentary evidence adduced at the trial before it arrives at its decision, so as to satisfy itself that on the balance of probabilities, the conclusions of the trial judge are reasonably or amply supported by the evidence”.

See also Ampomah vs Volta River Authority (1989-90) 2GLR 28; Djin vs Musah Baako (2007-2008) SCGLR 686; Ago Sai vs. Kpobi Tetteh Tsuru III (2010) SCGLR 762 at 791; Akuffo-Addo vs. Cathline (1992) 1GLR 377.

Applying the above criteria, I state that both parties, that is the appellants and the respondents agree unequivocally that succession to the Bawjiase stool is matrilineal.

In his book The Law of Chieftaincy in Ghana (2nd Edition), Advanced Legal Publications, Justice S.A Brobbey states with regard to the matrilineal system that

“under the matrilineal system, the family tree never originates from a male successor. Normally, it is the female line that succeeds their uncles as chiefs. Children of Akan males never succeed their fathers as chiefs”,

Prof. Justice A.K.P. Kludze also in his book Modern Law of Succession in Ghana (1988 edition) at page 274 states that:

“Matrilineal succession implies the principle of matri-descent and matri-succession. A person from the matrilineal community, therefore, belongs to his mother’s family on the principle of matri-descent, thereby owing allegiance to the stool served by his mother’s family. It also does imply matri-succession, so that devolution of property is organised on the principle that eligibility to succeed must be conferred by tracing descent through one’s mother”.

In his evidence in chief, the 1st appellant Nai Kofi Aworabi testified as follows;

“My name is Nai Kofi Aworabi of Awutu Bawjiase. I am 81 years old i.e 8th January 1930. I am a farmer. My family is Kofi Oboh Twidan of Awutu Bawjiase. Nana Kofi Oboh’s brother is Nana Opei Kuma, Nana Djabeng. The stool at Bawjiase’s owners included Nana Asharkoh and Kofi Oboh. Whoever ascends the stool should come from the descendants of these people. No one can ascend the stool unless you come from the descendants of them. Because of that, the first to ascend the stool is called Kow Amu a descendant of Kofi Oboh. The second one is Kwesi Ankama, the third one is Nana Obo Antwi…”

Under cross examination by the defendant, he was asked:

Q: Is your clan destined (sic) at Awutu by matrilineal or patrilineal.

A: By matrilineal

Q: How many children did Nana or Obaapanin Asharkoh begat?

A: She begat four

Q: What are their names?

A: They are Nana Opeikuma, Nana Gyarbeng, Nana Kofi Oboh and

Nana Budu and her daughter Aryeley.

Q: You said she begat four but they are now five. Which of them predominated the Bawjiase Twidan Stool.

A: Kofi Oboh’s name is used for the stool.

On the other hand, the 3rd defendant, Kwame Armah Tagoe who testified for himself and on behalf of the respondents stated in his evidence in chief thus:

“Our grand ancestor Asharkoh begat four children, two (2) boys and two (2) girls. One of the boys is called Opeikuma and another called Djarbeng. The girls are Adoobi. She is black in colour and Obledjumah was copper in colour. The main Twidan royal family from which a candidate is chosen to ascend the stool is Obledjumah and Adoobi gates or group”.

As already stated, both parties per their evidence admit that Bawjiase stool is matrilineal and that the progenitor of the stool was Narchey Asharkoh a woman.

Under cross examination by the panel at page 89 of the Record, the 1st appellant was asked:

Q: currently if you are going to install a chief, which gate would you choose a candidate.

A: From Kofi Oboh’s gate.

Q: Why do you choose a candidate only from Kofi Oboh’s gate

A: The gate that belongs to Kofi Oboh and his descendants are allowed to ascend the stool.

In respect of the evidence of the 1st appellant to the effect that the gate that belongs to Kofi Oboh and his descendants are allowed to ascend the stool, the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs made an important observation in their judgment at page 508 of the Record of Appeal as follows:

“Curiously the gate that the 1st appellant mentioned is traceable to a man Nana Kofi Oboh. This evidence by the 1st appellant is contrary to both parties claiming they belong to a matrilineal society, that is to say the parties inherit from the female line. If that was so, how come the name of a male was being used as a pointer?”

Indeed if as claimed by both parties, the Bawjiase stool is matrilineal and the progenitor was Narchey Asharkoh, the question as correctly posed by the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs is why would the appellants insist that a chief must be nominated from Kofi Oboh’s gate?

This view obviously flows from the appellants’ contention that the respondents are strangers to the grand-ancestor Narchey Asharkor whose descendants both parties from their evidence on record agree to be the rightful heirs to the stool of Bawjiase. The appellants contended that the respondents are descendants of one late Opanyin Onyaa Yaw who were migrants from Ekumfi Gyankuma and were accepted and adopted into their family. They contended further that their adoption into appellants’ family did not confer on them membership of the royalty or royal status.

In respect of the ancestry of the respondents, the 3rd respondent testified as follows at page 91 of the record of appeal:

“Our grand-ancestor Asharkoh begat four children, two boys and two girls. One of the boys is called Opeikuma and another one is called Gyarbeng. The girls are Adolobi (Adoobi). She is black in colour and Obledjuma was copper in colour. Our family migrated from Ayawaso and then to Opeikuma and Djeisu and then Bawjiase. We have 4 stools, Nana Asharkoh brought one stool from Ayawaso to Opeikuma. Opeikuma also carried one stool in addition to Asharkoh’s stool. Djarbeng also carried one stool and Kweku Osardu alias Kwaku Anto carried one stool making four in all. The main Twidan royal family from which candidates are chosen to ascend the stool are Obledjumah and Adoobi groups…Kofi Oboh is from Adoobi and Kweku Osardu is from Obledjumah.

History depicts that sometime ago, the Awutu town burnt and made Anto Kwaku and Kofi Oboh move from Awutu to Opeikuma in 1897 Kofi Oboh and Kweku Oserdu moved from Opeikuma and settled at Agona Duakwa to find some land to purchase. They bought the Bawjiase land from Ohemaa Andoh at the cost of 20 pounds 13. 6 d. Kofi Oboh died in 1914 at Opeikuma. He did not stay at Bawjiase land due to old age. In 1915, their Bawjiase settlement was growing therefore Kweku Osardu was candidate to become Odikro. In 1925 Anto Kweku went to collect 3 stools at Opeikuma town and added them to the one he carried at Bawjiase to be 4 stools.”

The 3rd respondent then traced their ancestry including that of the 2nd respondent Frank George Bosomtwe Arko to Obledjumah, daughter of Narchey Asharkoh. He also traced the ancestry of Kweku Osardu alias Kwaku Anto who from the evidence occupied the Bawjiase stool to the same Obledjumah.

Incidentally, the appellants did not dispute the respondents’ evidence that Kweku Osardu alias Kweku Anto from the Obledjumah lineage was once enstooled chief of Bawjiase.

From the evidence on record, it is not even clear whether Nana Kofi Oboh ever sat on the Bawjiase stool.

When the 1st appellant was asked in cross-examination who the first chief of Bawjiase was he said:

Q: Who was the first chief of Bawjiase

A: He is Nana or Ohene Kow Anim.

Thus according to the appellants, Nana Kofi Oboh who founded Bawjiase was not the first chief but rather it was Kow Anim.

The fact that the royal Twidan family of Bawjiase has four stools as testified by the respondent was confirmed by the appellants during the cross-examination of the 1st appellant at page 83 of the record of appeal as follows:

Q: what hampered you from the installation of George Frank

Bosomtwe Arko the 2nd defendant.

A: He is not amongst the section from which a chief is installed.

Q: What family does George Frank Bosomtwe Arko belong.

A: Twidan family.

Q: How many Twidan families are there in Bawjiase.

A: Only one.

Q: What is the name

A: Oboh Twidan

Q: Did Frank Bosomtwe Arko belong to the Oboh Twidan Ebusua

A: We are of the same family but he does not belong to the section from which a chief is candidated.

Q: Which section do (sic) George Frank Bosomtwe Arko come from

A: He does not come from any one of the four 4 sections or stools of

Bawjiase.

Q: You said he is not from a section from which a candidate is chosen.

How did he and his ancestors come to join the family.

A: I do not know where they came from.

Whereas the appellants contend that the 2nd respondent is not from their ancestor Nana Asharkor’s lineage, the respondents deny their assertion and contend that they belong to the Narchey Asharkor lineage through her daughter Obledjumah.

The Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs after reviewing the evidence on record stated as follows:

“We have read the entire record of proceedings and do not see any verifiable proof of same by the appellants that they (i.e the respondents) had been brought elsewhere by some members of the family. The respondents have denied the assertion by giving their ancestry through the Obledjumah line.

Between the two rival versions, the question is which of the two (2) versions is probable or is likely to be believed. The Committee prefers the evidence of the respondents to that of the appellants. We say so because in the first place, the appellants never offered any verifiable proof when the chance fell on them. Their evidence is that Kweku Osardu had only come to occupy the stool by permission as there was no verifiable males from the Kofi Oboh’s side at the time. There is no verifiable record that there was any such agreement.”

As stated earlier, the appellants had asserted that the respondents were strangers who were adopted into the royal family of Bawjiase. That assertion was vehemently denied by the respondent.

The burden of proof shifted unto the appellants to lead credible evidence to support their contention that the respondents were indeed strangers. Except for the bare assertion of the 1st appellant they failed to prove same. See the case of Majolagbe vs Labi & Ors. [1959] GLR 190 at page 192 wherein Ollenu J (as he then was) stated the principle of law regarding such proof thus:

“Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, say e.g. by producing documents description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having in repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true”

See also the case of Zabrama vs Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 22.

It is important to note that the record shows that Nai Kofi Oboh, a male child in the matrilineal family could not and did not originate a family or gate or lineage within the family but trace his ancestry to a common ancestor Narchey Asharkoh and more particularly through Adoobi, the daughter of Narchey Asharkeh. There is also ample evidence on record that Kweku Osardu alias Anto Kweku became the chief of Bawjiase.

In his statement of case at paragraphs 53, 54 and 55, counsel for the appellants submitted as follows:

“53. My Lords the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs reasoned that, the Bawjiase stool in terms of succession, is matrilineal and Kofi Oboh being a male cannot descend successive chiefs.

54. We submit that that reasoning, with the greatest respect to the tribunal is erroneous. The fact that the founder of Bawjiase, Kofi Oboh traced descent through the matrilineal system does not mean that the stool he created for his lineage must ipso facto be succeeded matrilineally. We submit that since from the beginning of the ascendency to the Bawjiase Stool, same has been of a patrilineal descent from Kofi Oboh, and same has consistently been succeeded by men from his male line over generations, then the Stool by custom becomes patrilineal even though the founder himself was matrilineal

55. My Lords, in such circumstance, we urge on my Lords to hold that the long unbroken succession with the last chief, Nai Oboh Antwi, creates a binding customary rule. The rule, my Lords, should not be what the founder, Kofi Oboh’s personal lineage was but what he attached to the Stool he founded.”

This submission by counsel for the appellant is at once strange and baffling and represents a complete misapprehension of the matrilineal system which as stated in Justice Kludze’s book (supra) is stated as matri-descent and also matri-succession. Indeed, it is submissions such as these which underpin the appellant’s case which compelled the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs to describe the appellant’s case as full of numerous contradictions and inconsistencies.

Indeed, this submission clearly destroys the case of the appellants and in our view justifies the decisions of both the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs and the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs in overturning the decision of the Awutu Traditional Council.

The undisputed evidence of both parties was that the Bawjiase Stool was of matrilineal descent. The finding by the trial Awutu Traditional Council that descendants of Kofi Oboh are the people who ascend the stool was clearly erroneous and the Central regional House of Chiefs as the appellate tribunal was right in reversing the judgment of the said trial tribunal. For the law is that where an appellate court comes to the conclusion that findings of fact by the court below are not supported by the evidence on record, or where the findings are perverse, then it may set aside those findings. The appellate court will also set aside findings and conclusions arrived at by a lower court where the findings and conclusions are based on a wrong proposition of law. See the case of FKA Co. Ltd. vs. Ayikai Akramah II & others (2016) 101 GMJ 186. Also see the case of Koglex (No.2) vs. Field (2000) SCGLR 175

Having perused the whole record of appeal and the statement of case of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants have failed to show that the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chief erred or wrongly evaluated the evidence before it. We find that the said Judicial Committee was right in affirming the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs which reversed the erroneous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Awutu Traditional Council.

For the avoidance of doubt we affirm the following findings of fact made by the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs:

That the Twidan Royal Family of Bawjiase trace it ancestry to Narchey Asharkoh.

That the said Narchey Asharkoh gave birth to four (4) children two (2) males and two (2) females.

That the succession is Matrilineal.

That because succession is Matrilineal, the ascendancy to the Bawjiase Stool is of two (2) gates namely Adoobi and Obledjumah.

That prior to the carving out of the Bawjiase Stool there existed three (3) Stools carved by Narchey Asharkoh, Opeikumah and Nai Djarbeng before their settlement in Bawjiase.

That the first occupant of the Bawjiase Stool after the four (4) Stools had been joined together was Kwaku Anto or Osardu.

Thereafter the said Stool had been occupied by various persons with the last one being Nana Obo Antwi.

That it was after the death of Nana Obo Antwi that the 1st Appellant was appointed as regent.

That the 2nd Respondent George Bosomtwe Arko is a descendant of Narchey Asharkoh who traced his lineage from the Obledjumah line.

That the first Respondent Ebusuapanyin Kofi Appiah who is the overall Ebusuapanyin of the Twidan Royal Family of Bawjiase nominated the 2nd Respondent for the consideration of the Kingmakers which include the Gyasehene and the like.

That the installation of the 2nd Respondent as Bawjiasehene had followed laid down custom and usage of Bawjiase.

That it is our conclusion that the Bawjiase Stool is traceable to Narchey Asharkoh who had two (2) female children namely, Adoobi and Oblejumah

That the descendants of these two (2) females could mount the Bawjiase Stool since the 2nd Respondent had been validly installed according to the custom of Bawjiase and his enstoolment should not be disturbed.

The appeal hereby fails as being without merit and we hereby affirm the judgment of the National House of Chiefs dated 23rd May 2024.

(SGD.) H. KWOFIE

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) G. PWAMANG

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) E. YONNY KULENDI

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) E. Y. GAEWU

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

(SGD.) H. AMALEBOBA

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)

COUNSEL

PAA JOY AKUAMOAH BOATENG ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS WITH EMMANUEL AMOAKOHENE ESQ.

DANIEL ARTHUR ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS