This is an appeal from a
judgment of the
"Test
African Court of Appeal which
dismissed the appellants' appeal
from the decision of Yates J. in
the Divisional Court for the
Central Province .of the Supreme
Court of the Gold Coast Colony.
The title of the action is "Kweku
Baa of Nsaba, Head of the Stool
Family of Agona, for and on
behalf of 'the Stool of, Nsaba
[he has died since the action
was begun and another man, Kwesi
Donkor, has been substituted],
and Abontendomhene Kofi Atta,
also of Nsaba,' for and on
behalf of the Oman of Nsaba."
Their Lordships are told he
represents the municipality of
Nsaba. 'the action is against"
Nyarku Kweku IV, Ohene of N
yarkrome, officially known as
Omanhene of Agona, for and on
behalf of the Stool of N
yarkrome."
The endorsement on the writ was:
The Plaintiffs for and on behalf
of the Stool of Nsaba and the
Oman of Nsaba respectively
jointly and severally claim
against the defendant as
occupant of the stool of
Nyarkrome a perpetual injunction
restraining the defendant and/
or anybody acting or purporting
to act on behalf of the
Defendant as occupant of the
stool of Nyarkrome and acting
for or on behalf of the said
stool from exercising any
authority under the Native
Administration Ordinance as
Omanhene of Agona over any
person or persons stool or
stools subject to and owing
allegiance to the said stool of
Nsaba."
Their Lordships express no
opinion as to whether such an
action as that would lie. It
sounds as though it was a rather
remarkable action on the part of
subjects disclaiming the
authority of the Sovereign. But
that is not a matter which
arises on this hearing.
By the procedure on the Gold Coast
it apparently is not necessary to
have pleadings. Pleadings were not
asked for.
The action came on for hearing
before the Court and thereupon
it was objected to by Counsel
for the defence on the ground
that it was in violation of
certain sections of the Native
Administration Ordinance,
Chapter III of the Laws of the
Gold Coast, which deal with the
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts
in such matters.
As there are no pleadings, and
the learned Judge gave effect to
that contention, and he
delivered a short judgment, and
the Court of Appeal apparently
delivered a still shorter
judgment, their Lordships have
not many facts before them in
order to ascertain what the
point at issue is, and rely upon
the useful assistance which Mr.
Minty, Counsel for the
appellants, has given them in
respect of the matter.
On those materials the case
appears to be of this nature.
In 'the State of Agona there was
a Paramount Chief, Omanhene,
whose Stool was at Nsaba. There
was also a Subordinate Chief at
Nyarkrome, Ohene of Nyarkrome.
In 1930 the Paramount Chief of
Nsaba was destooled. Apparently
there was for a time a vacancy
in the position of Paramount
Chief of that State. In 1932 the
Governor, purporting to act
under section 121, making an
amendment of schedule 1 of the
Native Administration
Ordinance, substituted for "Nsaba"
in that schedule the word "
Nyarkrome ", which was intended
to have the effect of providing
that the Chief at. Nyarkrome
should thereafter be the
Paramount Chief for the whole
District of Agona. Whether he
had authority to do that or not
their Lordships do not know, and
they express no opinion about
it. It is one of the matters
which would have been apparently
disputed if there had been
jurisdiction in the Court to
determine the question. But the
matter did not rest there. On
the 2nd April, 1932, the
Governor notified that Nyarku
Kweku IV, Ohene of Nyarkrome,
had been elected and installed
as Omanhene of Agona with effect
as from the 30th January, 1930.
So there can be no question that
in the opinion of . the Governor
the Ohene of N yarkrome was
elected' and installed as
Paramount Chief of the State.
The action is undoubtedly
brought to dispute his position
as Paramount Chief of the State.
It is said that at Nsaba they do
not recognise him and they wish
an injunction to restrain him
from exercising the functions of
Paramount Chief at Nsaba ..
The plaintiffs are met by what
appear to their Lordships to be
the plain terms of section 26 of
the Native Administration
Ordinance:
"The Court shall not have
jurisdiction to entertain either
as of first instance or on appeal
any civil cause or civil matter
instituted for the trial of any
question relating to the election,
installation," and it goes on
"deposition or abdication of any
Paramount' Chief or Divisional
Chief."
There is a proviso which does not
apply. Those words appear quite
plain to cover the dispute in this
case. It is a question relating to
the election and installation of a
Paramount Chief. It is the
election and installation which
the plaintiffs seek to dispute. It
is that election and installation
which the Ordinance says the Court
shall not have jurisdiction to
entertain. That is the ground
taken by the Court of Appeal in
West Africa.
It appears to their Lordships that
it if' impossible to say that that
decision is wrong. It appears on
the materials before their
Lordships to be right and in
accordance with the meaning of the
words of the section, and,
therefore, their Lordships will
humbly advise His Majesty that the
appeal should be dismissed. As the
respondent does not appear there
will be no order as to costs.
|