Chieftaincy - Cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy -
Judicial Committee - National
House of Chiefs – Capacity -
Selection, election, nomination,
enstoolment of chief –
Kingmakers - Whether or not the
petition is before the proper
forum - Whether the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs has
jurisdiction to deal with the
petition - Articles 274 (3) (a)
(b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) and 274
(4) of the Constitution 1992 and
(National and Regional House of
Chiefs) Procedure Rules 1972, C.
I. 27.
HEADNOTES
On
21st March 2010, the
petitioner was nominated by the
Obaapanin and was accepted by
the Kingmakers of Kojo Bofour.
The Petitioner was installed as
the chief of Kojo Bofour with
the stool name Nana Agyare
Bofour IV. Even though the
petitioner is the properly
installed chief of Kojo Bofour
and the Adontenhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area, the 1st
respondent has been wrongfully
and purportedly nominated,
styled and installed by the 2nd
,3rd and 4th
respondents as the chief of Kojo
Bofour and the Adontenhene of
the Yeji Traditional Area,That
the purported nomination and
installation of the 1st
respondent by the other
respondents with the 3rd
and 4th respondents
playing a leading/major role was
done surreptitiously and without
the requisite knowledge,
consent, concurrence,
involvement, participation etc
of the kingmakers of Kojo Bofour
stool. That the conduct of the
respondents, more especially the
3rd and 4th
respondents, who are required to
be embodiment of custom is
customarily foreign, odd and
improper. The Petitioner states
boldly that because of organised
hatred, spite, malevolence etc.
by the 3rd
Respondent, who is the President
of the Yeji Traditional Council
he does not feel comfortable for
the said Respondent or anybody
selected by him to sit over his
case in judgment. That,
it is a statutory duty of the 3rd
Respondent to appoint members of
the Judicial Committee of the
Yeji Traditional Council and
such a right cannot be taken
away from the 3rd
Respondent. That the Petitioner
subsequently filed a motion
before the High Court Sunyani
alleging bias against the 3rd
Respondent in the appointment of
members of the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council. However,
the High Court, Sunyani
dismissed the said application.
An appeal by the Petitioner
against the Ruling of the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
to the Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs was
similarly unsuccessful and was
dismissed. Having obtained leave
from the Judicial Committee of
the National House of Chiefs,
the Petitioner yet again filed
another appeal against the
decision of the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs, to the Supreme Court
HELD
Having
established that the substance,
nature and effect of the reliefs
claimed by the Petitioner
against the Respondents before
the Judicial Committee of the
Brong Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs indicated quite clearly
without any shadow of doubt that
the Kojo Bofour stool is a
divisional stool whose dispute
is a cause or matter cognizable
before the Judicial Committee of
the Yeji Traditional Council,
this court is unable to allow
the appeal filed by the
Petitioner.
Under these
circumstances, the appeal by the
Petitioner against the decision
of the Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs dated
30th August 2018
fails entirely and is
accordingly dismissed. It was
for the above stated reasons
that we unanimously dismissed
the appeal on the 11th
of November 2020.
STATUTES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Constitution
1992
Chieftaincy
Act, 2008 (Act 759)
(National
and Regional House of Chiefs)
Procedure Rules 1972, C. I. 27.
Chieftaincy
(Proceedings and Functions)
Traditional Council Regulations,
1972 ( L.I. 798)
CASES
REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Nana
Yeboah-Kodie Asare II (Yonsohene
& Benkumhene of Jamasi) and
Another (No.I) vrs Addai Yonso
Bedomase -Bretuo Abusuapanyin
and others (No.I) [2015-2016] 2
SCGLR 1198
Tamakloe & Partners v GIHOC
Distilleries Co. Ltd. unreported
decision of the Supreme Court,
Suit No. J4/70/2018 dated 3rd
July 2019.
Akufo-Addo
v Cathline [1992] 1 GLR 377
Tuakwa v Bosom [2001-2002]
SCGLR,6
Gregory v Tandoh IV and Anr.
[2010] SCGLR, 971
Ansu Agyei v Fimah [1993-1995]
GBR 936, SC
Republic v The President Buem
Traditional Council; Ex-parte
Isuku II [1991] 1 GLR 455
Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General
and Akwetey) [2005-2006] SCGLR
732.
Republic v Western Regional
House of Chiefs, Ex-parte
Aduhene [1994-95] GBR 903
Konadu v Gyan [1987-88] 1 GLR
571
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Report
of the Committee of Experts,
(Constitution) on Proposals for
a Draft Constitution of Ghana
The
Law of Chieftaincy in Ghana S.A
Brobbey
DELIVERING
THE LEADING JUDGMENT
DOTSE,
JSC:-
COUNSEL
NANA
OBRI BOAHEN FOR THE
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.
KWADWO ADU BOSOMPEM FOR THE
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT
________________________________________________________________________________________________
DOTSE, JSC:-
On the 11th day of
November 2020, this court by a
unanimous decision, dismissed
the appeal filed by the
Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant,
hereafter referred to as the
Petitioner, against the decision
of the
Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs
dated 30th day of
August 2018 which decision was
in favour of the
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
hereafter referred to as
Respondents.
We now proffer reasons for our
decision.
This case no doubt is a
cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy.
It therefore takes its roots
from the
Constitution 1992. But how
did this all evolve under the
Constitution of 1992?
Report of the Committee of
Experts, (Constitution) on
Proposals for a Draft
Constitution of Ghana
which was presented to the
P.N.D.C on 31st July
1991 states as follows in
paragraphs 339, and 340 of the
Report on page 156.
339. “It is worth recalling
that Akufo-Addo Report
recommended the integration of
chieftaincy with the local
government system
While the committee would not go
so far as to recommend such a
radical step, it would
nevertheless draw attention to
the following:-
1.
Chieftaincy constitutes a major
resource that could be
officially tapped in reinforcing
the modern governmental
structure.
2.
Having regard to the high
intellectual and professional
calibre that the institution of
chieftaincy attracts these days,
chiefs may now be regarded as a
significant source of talent for
the modern sector.”
340. “The Committee
accordingly recommends that (1)
the institution of chieftaincy
be guaranteed in the
Constitution, as in the previous
constitutions,
(2) appropriate
steps be taken to ensure that
the effective participation of
chiefs in the local government
system; and
(3) adequate
resources be made available from
stool land revenues to enable
chiefs to play their legitimate
role as leaders and catalysts in
the development process.”
Emphasis
It was therefore pursuant to the
above proposals that articles
270 to 277 provisions of the
Constitution 1992 which
guarantee and regulate the
institution of chieftaincy have
been provided. For example,
article 270 (1) (2) and (3) of
the Constitution 1992 provides
as follows:-
270. “The Institution of
Chieftaincy
(1) The institution of
chieftaincy, together with
its traditional councils
established by customary law and
usage, is hereby guaranteed.
(2) Parliament shall have
no power to enact any law which
(a) confers on any person
or authority the right to accord
or withdraw recognition to or
from a chief for any purpose
whatsoever, or
(b) in any way detracts or
derogates from the honour and
dignity of the institution of
chieftaincy.
(3) Nothing in or done
under the authority of any law
shall be held to be inconsistent
with, or in contravention of,
clause (1) or (2) of this
article if the law makes
provision for,
(a) the determination, in
accordance with the appropriate
customary law usage, by a
traditional council, a Regional
House of Chiefs or the National
House of Chiefs or a Chieftaincy
Committee of any of them, of the
validity of the nomination,
election, selection,
installation or deposition of a
person as a chief,
(b) a traditional council
or a Regional House of Chiefs or
the National House of Chiefs to
establish and operate a
procedure for the registration
of chiefs and the public
notification in the Gazette or
otherwise of the status of
persons as chiefs in Ghana.”
Emphasis
WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT FACTS IN
ISSUE
On the 28th day of
March 2013,
the
Petitioner herein filed a writ
of summons against the
Respondents claiming
specifically the following
reliefs:-
“Wherefore the petitioner seeks
against the respondents herein
a.
A declaration that the purported
nomination, etc. of the 1st
respondent by the other
respondents is uncustomary,
improper, illegal and therefore
null and void.
b.
An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the 1st
respondent herein from styling
himself, holding himself out,
purporting to act, as the chief
of Kojo Bofour and Adontenhene
of Yeji Traditional Area.
c.
An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the 2nd,
3rd and 4th
respondents from styling,
holding out, referring to,
acknowledging the 1st
respondent as the chief of Kojo
Bofour and Adontenhene of Yeji
Traditional Area.
d.
Declaration that, the petitioner
herein is the chief of Kojo
Bofour and the Adontenhene of
Yeji Traditional Area/Council.
e.
Declaration that, the 1st
respondent is not the chief of
Kojo Bofour.
f.
Declaration that, the purported
nomination and recognition of
the respondent by the other
respondents as the chief of Kojo
Bofour is wrongful, improper
etc. in custom and same be
declared as null and void
g.
Declaration that, by custom,
convention, tradition etc. the 3rd
and 4th respondents
are not the kingmakers of the
Kojo Bofour stool and have no
role to play with the
selection, election, nomination,
enstoolment etc. of the
occupant to the Kojo Bofour
Stool.
h.
Declaration that, it is only the
Kingmakers of the Kojo
Bofour stool, who are eligible
and clothed with capacity to
nominate, select, enstool etc an
occupant to the Kojo Bofour
stool.
i.
Further orders as the Honourable
Judicial Committee may deem fit
to make arising out of the
pleadings.” Emphasis supplied
In order to understand the legal
arguments and the issues which
call for determination in this
chieftaincy appeal, it is
perhaps appropriate to set out
in extenso the nature of the
Petitioner’s pleadings as per
the petition filed by him
“In the Judicial Committee
Brong Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs
Sunyani, Brong Ahafo Region
Nana Agyare Bofour IV Chief
of
- Petitioner
Kojo Bofour and Adontenhene of
Yeji
Traditional Area
Vrs
1.
Jospeh Adade Ansah of Yeji Kuo
2.
Nana Kofe Ayerekete, Nifahene of
Yeji - Respondents
Traditional Area/Council
3.
Nana Yaw KagbreseV Omanhene of
Yeji Traditinal Area, Yeji
4.
Yeji Traditional Council, Yeji
1.
Full Name of Petitioner
Nana Agyare Bofour IV Chief of
Kojo Bofour
And Adontenhene of Yeji
Traditional Area/Council
2.
Capacity of Petitioner
Chief of Kojo Bofour and
Adontenhene
of Yeji Traditional Area/Council
3.
Names and Addresses of Persons
to be affected by this Petition
1.
Joseph Adade Ansah of Yeji
2.
Nana Kofe Ayerekete, Nifahene of
Yeji Traditional Area
3.
Nana Yaw KagbreseV Omanhene of
Yeji Traditional Area, Yeji
4.
Yeji Traditional Council, Yeji”
Wherefore, the Petitioner has
reason and can prove that
1.
The petitioner is a member of
the royal family of the Bofour
Gate of the Kojo Bofour stool.
2.
The 1st respondent is
a resident of Yeji Kuo.
3.
The 2nd respondent is
Nifahene of Yeji Traditional
Area who has wrongfully been
styling himself as the Stool
Father of the Adonten Division
of Yeji Traditional Area.
4.
The 3rd respondent is
the Omanhene of Yeji Traditional
Area and the President of the
Yeji Traditional Area.
5.
The 4th respondent is
the Traditional council of the
Yeji Traditional Area
6.
On 21st March 2010,
the petitioner was nominated by
the Obaapanin and was accepted
by the Kingmakers of Kojo Bofour.
7.
The Petitioner was installed as
the chief of Kojo Bofour with
the stool name Nana Agyare
Bofour IV.
10. Even though the petitioner
is the properly installed chief
of Kojo Bofour and the
Adontenhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area, the 1st
respondent has been wrongfully
and purportedly nominated,
styled and installed by the 2nd
,3rd and 4th
respondents as the chief of Kojo
Bofour and the Adontenhene of
the Yeji Traditional Area.
11. That the purported
nomination and installation of
the 1st respondent by
the other respondents with the 3rd
and 4th respondents
playing a leading/major role was
done surreptitiously and without
the requisite knowledge,
consent, concurrence,
involvement, participation etc
of the kingmakers of Kojo Bofour
stool.
25. That the conduct of the
respondents, more especially the
3rd and 4th
respondents, who are required to
be embodiment of custom is
customarily foreign, odd and
improper.
26. Ordinarily, the present
petition ought to have been
brought before the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council which would
conventionally be empanelled by
the 3rd respondents
in his capacity as the President
of the Yeji Traditional Council
27. However, the respondents
have demonstrated such high
level of organized hatred,
spite, malevolence, covetousness
etc. against the petitioner that
both prudence and law dictate
that they or their agents or
anyone working under their
authority are unfit to sit as
Judges on any petition initiated
by the petitioner.
28. In fact, the respondents,
particularly the 3rd
and 4th respondents,
have engaged the petitioner in
numerous, albeit frivolous,
suits and have manifested such
uncontrollable and unfair weight
of viciousness that it would
just be contrary to all precepts
of the rule of law and
acceptable standards of
procedure known in all civilized
societies for them (respondents)
to sit as Judges or appoint
their cronies to sit as Judges
in the present petition. This
explains why the present
petition is brought before
Nananom and not before the
Judicial Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council.” Emphasis
supplied.
From the above rendition of the
facts as contained in the
petition filed by the Petitioner
herein against the Respondents,
the following should be
carefully noted:-
1.
Petitioner claims to have been
installed as chief of Kojo
Bofour and Adontenhene of Yeji
Traditional Area.
2.
The 1st Respondent
has also been nominated, elected
and installed as chief of Kojo
Bofour and Adontenhene of Yeji
Traditional Area, an act, the
Petitioner is seriously
disputing.
3.
The 3rd Respondent is
the Omanhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area and the
President of the Yeji
Traditional Council.
4.
As between the Petitioner and
the 1st Respondent,
there is a raging claim as to
which of them is the legitimate
occupant of the Kojo Bofour
stool and Adontenhene of the
Yeji Traditional Area.
5.
The Petitioner is aware of the
fact that, the contest between
him and the 1st
Respondent herein as to which of
them is the legitimate occupant
of the Kojo Bofour Stool and
Adotenhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area ought to have
been commenced before the
Judicial Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council, (Reference
paragraph 26 of the Petition
referred to supra).
6.
The Petitioner states boldly
that because of organised
hatred, spite, malevolence etc.
by the 3rd
Respondent, who is the President
of the Yeji Traditional Council
he does not feel comfortable for
the said Respondent or anybody
selected by him to sit over his
case in judgment.
7.
Finally, it bears emphasis from
the nature of the reliefs being
claimed by the Petitioner
against the Respondents that,
it is a suit in respect of a
Divisional or sub-divisional
stool, whose pride of place
according to relevant
constitutional, statutory and
subsidiary legislations is the
Judicial Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council and not the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs.
8.
The question which then begs for
an answer is whether the
Petitioner is within his rights
when he has invoked the
jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee of the Brong-Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs which
is reserved for determination of
disputes involving Paramount
Chiefs. Reference
Articles 274 (3) (a) (b) (c) (d)
(e) and (f) and 274 (4) of the
Constitution 1992 and (National
and Regional House of Chiefs)
Procedure Rules 1972, C. I. 27.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents substantially
responded to the petition in all
material particulars as
follows:-
i.
That, it is a statutory duty of
the 3rd Respondent to
appoint members of the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council and such a
right cannot be taken away from
the 3rd Respondent.
ii.
That the Petitioner
subsequently filed a motion
before the High Court Sunyani
alleging bias against the 3rd
Respondent in the appointment of
members of the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council.
iii.
However, the High Court, Sunyani
presided over by Beresford
Acquah J, on 26/3/2013 dismissed
the said application.
iv.
The Respondents then raised a
lethal and incisive legal
argument as per paragraph 33 of
their Defence as follows:-
“The 3rd Respondent
contends that the petition in
the Brong Ahafo Regional House
of Chiefs by the Petitioner is
improper and it should be
dismissed because the Judicial
Committee of the Brong-Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs has no
jurisdiction to hear and
determine this petition.
Emphasis
In the memoranda of issues that
was settled by the Judical
Committee of the Brong-Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs, issue
(c) which dealt with the
resolution of the legal argument
states as follows:-
“Whether
or not the petition is before
the proper forum.”
The Respondents also filed a
motion praying the Judicial
Committee to dismiss the
petition on the grounds that the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chief
has no jurisdiction to hear and
determine the present petition
by the Petitioner. This was the
application that was determined
by the Judicial Committee.
RULING OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
BRONG-AHAFO REGIONAL HOUSE OF
CHIEFS DATED 27TH
AUGUST 2013
In a unanimous decision by the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs,
dated 27th August
2013 the said Committee on the
Respondents application to
dismiss the petition, dealt
with the preliminary legal
objection on the issue
of
whether the Judicial Committee
of the Brong Ahafo Regional
House of Chiefs has jurisdiction
to deal with the petition as
filed before it.
After exhaustive discussions and
analysis of the arguments of
learned counsel in respect of
the preliminary legal
submissions, the judicial
Committee decided the issue in
the following terms:-
“It is the opinion of Nananom
that, these reliefs (d) and (e)
are the root of the dispute and
since the decision of the
Superior court bind this (sic)
Committee, Nananom hold
themselves bound by these and
other decisions and hereby
decline jurisdiction in this
matter. Case consequently strike
of (sic) and dismissed.”
Emphasis
APPEAL BY RESPONDENT TO JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE
OF CHIEFS
An appeal by the Petitioner
against the Ruling of the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
to the Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs was
similarly unsuccessful and was
dismissed.
In its unanimous decision dated
30th August 2018, the
Judicial Committee of the
National House opined and held
thus:-
“On account of the above, the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
rightly declined jurisdiction
to hear and determine the
Appellant’s petition and hence
dismissed same. We therefore
find nothing wrong with the
Ruling of the Judicial Committee
of the Brong Ahafo Regional
House of Chiefs dated 27th
August 2013 and we accordingly
affirm same. For the foregoing
reasons, this appeal fails and
same is hereby dismissed.”
Emphasis
FURTHER APPEAL BY PETITIONER
WITH LEAVE TO THE SUPREME COURT
Having obtained leave from the
Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs dated
25th April 2019, the
Petitioner yet again filed
another appeal against the
decision of the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs on the 2nd
day of May 2019, to the Supreme
Court
as per the following Notice and
grounds of appeal.
“Notice of Appeal pursuant to
the Grant of leave by the
National House of Chiefs
Judicial Committee on 24/04/2019
1.
Please take notice that the
Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant
herein aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the
decision/ruling of the National
House of Chiefs, Kumasi dated
the 30th day of
August 2018 doth hereby appeal
to the Supreme Court, Accra on
the grounds stated in paragraph
3 of this appeal, and will at
the hearing of this appeal seek
the reliefs set forth in
paragraph 4 below and the person
to be affected by this appeal is
described in paragraph 5 below.
2.
Part of the decision complained
of
a.
The entire decision/judgment and
all consequential orders of the
National House of Chiefs, Kumasi
dated the 30th day of
August 2018
3.
Grounds of Appeal
a.
The National House of Chiefs
erred by holding that, the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
is not the proper forum to
contest the petition.
b.
The National House of Chiefs
erred when it failed to confirm
jurisdiction on the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs.
Particulars of error
1.
Failing to appreciate the fact
that, since the 3rd
and 4th
Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
are parties, the Regional House
of Chiefs, Brong Ahafo Region is
the proper forum
c.
The National House of Chiefs
failed to appreciate the case of
the
Appellant/Appellant/Appellant
and thereby plunged into error.
d.
The Ruling of the Judicial
Committee of the National is
against the weight of evidence
e.
Cost awarded against the
petitioner/Appellant/Appellant
was excessive, harsh improper
etc
f.
Additional grounds of appeal
shall be filed upon the receipt
of the certified true copy of
the ruling.
4.
Relief being sought
a.
To reverse, set aside etc. the
decision of the National House
of Chiefs and all the
consequential orders dated the
30th day of August
2018.
5.
Persons being affected by the
Appeal
1.
Joseph Adade Ansah of Yeji
2.
Nana Kofi Ayerekete, Nifahene of
Yeji Traditional Area
3.
Nana Yaw Kabrese v Omanhene of
Yeji Traditional Area, Yeji
4.
Yeji Traditional Council, Yeji”
Emphasis
Application of the relevant
constitutional, statutory and
subsidiary legislations on the
issues germane to this appeal as
raised and argued in the
statements of case of learned
counsel for the parties herein.
At this stage, we deem it
expedient to set out the
following relevant statutory
provisions as follows, The
Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759)
Sections 26, 29 (1) &
(2) & 76 and The
Chieftaincy (Proceedings and
Functions) Traditional Council
Regulations, 1972 ( L.I. 798)
Regulations 1, 2, 3 &4.
26. “Original jurisdiction of
Regional House of Chiefs
Subject to section 22 a Regional
House has original jurisdiction
in matters relating to a
paramount stool or skin or the
occupant of a paramount stool or
skin including queenmothers to a
paramount stool or skin.
29. Jurisdiction of
Traditional Councils
(1)
Subject to this Act, a
Traditional Council has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and determine a cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy which
arises within its area, not
being one to which the
Asantehene or a paramount chief
is a party.
(2)
The jurisdiction of a
Traditional Council shall be
exercised by a Judicial
Committee comprising three or
five members appointed by the
Council from their members.
76. Interpretation
In this Act unless the context
otherwise requires,
“Asantehene”
means the occupant of the Golden
Stool of Ashanti;
“cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy”
means a cause, matter, question
or dispute relating to any of
the following
(a) the nomination, election,
selection or installation of a
person as a chief or the claim
of a person to be nominated,
elected, selected or installed
as a chief,
(b) the deposition or abdication
of a chief,
(c) the right of a person to
take part in the nomination,
election, selection or
installation of a person as a
chief or in the deposition of a
chief,
(d) the recovery or delivery of
stool property in connection
with the nomination, election,
selection, installation,
deposition or abdication of a
chief, and
(e) the constitutional relations
under customary law between
chiefs;
“deposition”
means destoolment or deskinment;
“divisional chief”
means a chief whose name for the
time being appears as a
Divisional Chief in the National
Register of Chiefs,
“Judicial Committee”
means a committee appointed
under sections 25, 28 or 29 of
this Act,
“Minister”
means the Minister responsible
for Chieftaincy and Culture;
“National House”
means the National House of
Chiefs,
“paramount chief”
means a person who has been
nominated, elected or selected
and installed as a paramount
chief in accordance with
customary law and usage,
“Regional House”
means the Regional House of
Chiefs of the relevant region,
“Register”
means the register of chiefs
maintained by the National House
under section 59; and
“stool”
includes a skin.
Chieftaincy (Proceedings and
Functions) Traditional Councils
Regulations, 1972 (L.I.798) –
Regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4
“Regulation 1—Jurisdiction of
the Traditional Council.
(1) A Traditional Council
established under section 12 of
the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act
370) shall have jurisdiction to
hear and determine any cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy
which arises within its area.
(2) The said jurisdiction
shall not include any cause or
matter to which the Asantehene
or a Paramount Chief is a party.
Regulation 2—Judicial Committee
of the Traditional Council.
The jurisdiction conferred on
each Traditional Council by
section 15 of the Chieftaincy
Act and these regulations shall
be exercised by a judicial
committee.
Regulation 3—Composition of the
Judicial Committee.
(1) A judicial committee
shall be appointed by a
Traditional Council and shall
consist of five persons all of
whom shall be members of that
Council.
(2) A judicial committee
shall elect one of their number
as Chairman, who shall preside
over the committee.
(3) A judicial committee
shall be duly constituted for
the despatch of its business by
not less than three members
thereof.
(4) The determination of
any question before the judicial
committee of a Traditional
Council shall be by simple
majority. Emphasis
PRELIMINARY ISSUES ARISING FROM
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER’S
STATEMENT OF CASE AND REPLY
Learned counsel for the
petitioner, Nana Obiri Boahen,
prefaced his submissions in the
statement of case by reference
to the case of
Nana Yeboah-Kodie Asare II (Yonsohene
& Benkumhene of Jamasi) and
Another (No.I) vrs Addai Yonso
Bedomase -Bretuo Abusuapanyin
and others (No.I)
[2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1198
Apart from the said quotation
being a correct statement of the
philosophical underpinnings of
the administration of law, there
is absolutely no nexus in the
entire statement connecting
anything of relevance in the
instant appeal to the said
statement.
Secondly, we also fail to
understand the complaint of
there being two judgment on the
record thereby smacking of fraud
and question marks.
We concede that there are two
judgments, but it is quite
certain that one was the record
of the judgment as delivered and
the other the detailed reasoning
of the court. Indeed a close
reading of the two records of
the judgments will give no other
impression and understanding. We
completely fail to appreciate
the relevance of the said
submissions as they are not
referable to any ground of
appeal
GROUNDS A, B, C AND D
We have perused the statement of
case filed by learned counsel
for the petitioner and we are of
the opinion that the submissions
made therein are not referable
to the said grounds of appeal
and the substance of the case.
Learned counsel for the
petitioner just referred to
quotations from various
judgments without even
acknowledging the principles of
law involved and how they apply
to the circumstances of the
instant case. The crux of the
case of the Petitioner is that,
the Judicial Committee of the
Brong-Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs is the convenient forum
for the case because the 3rd
Respondent who is the Omanhene
of Yeji and President of the 4th
Respondent Council, (Yeji
Traditional Council) are both
parties to the suit and cannot
therefore be arbiters in a suit
in respect of which they are
parties. This brings into focus
the “nemo judex in causa sua”
(i.e. one cannot be Judge in his
own cause) principle of
natural justice. That is the
case of the Petitioner, period.
The reliance on cases like the
following
1.
Tamakloe & Partners v GIHOC
Distilleries Co. Ltd. unreported
decision of the Supreme Court,
Suit No. J4/70/2018 dated 3rd
July 2019.
2.
Akufo-Addo v Cathline [1992] 1
GLR 377
3.
Tuakwa v Bosom [2001-2002]
SCGLR,6
4.
Gregory v Tandoh IV and Anr.
[2010] SCGLR, 971 just to
mention a few are not applicable
to the grounds of appeal urged
upon us.
STATEMENT OF CASE OF LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Learned counsel for the
Respondents, Kwadwo Adu Bosompem
in his brief but incisive
statement of case stated that, a
close look at the reliefs sought
by the Petitioner at the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
indicate quite clearly that the
substance of the reliefs therein
does not relate to the paramount
stool, but rather to a
Divisional stool. He submitted
therefore that, the case should
not have been commenced at the
Judicial Committee of the Brong
Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
but at the Judicial Committee of
the relevant Traditional
Council, and this is the Yeji
Traditional council.
Learned counsel then referred to
the relevant constitutional, as
well as statutory provisions in
the Constitution and The
Chieftaincy Act, 2008 Act 759
as well as the case of
Ansu Agyei v Fimah [1993-1995]
GBR 936, SC.
ANALYSIS
Article 270 of the Constitution
1992 guarantees and preserves
the institution of chieftaincy
as established under customary
law and usage and protects it
from any control such as
recognition of a chief by any
organ of state or individual. It
must therefore be emphasized
that jurisdiction by its very
nature is always conferred by
either a constitutional
provision or by statute.
Sometimes the Constitution
provides the basic framework of
the jurisdiction and statutory
provisions and other subsidiary
legislations amplify it by
providing the general
guidelines, scope and remit of
each jurisdictional stipulation.
REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS
As referred to earlier, these
are creations under article 274
(1) of the Constitution and have
been established in each of the
administrative regions of Ghana.
Pursuant to article 274 (2) the
membership of each Regional
House of Chiefs is to be
determined by law in Parliament.
Article 274 (3) (a) to (f) deal
with the functions and
jurisdictions that have been
conferred on the Regional Houses
of Chiefs.
Under Article 274 (3) (c), the
Regional House of Chiefs has
appellate jurisdiction to hear
appeals and determine same from
the traditional councils within
the region in respect of the
nomination, election, selection,
installation or deposition of a
person as a chief.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Pursuant to article 274 (3) (d)
of the Constitution, a Regional
House of Chiefs has original
jurisdiction in all matters
relating to a paramount stool or
skin, or the occupant of the
above and this includes
queenmother to a paramount stool
or skin.
The appellate and original
jurisdiction conferred on the
Regional House of Chiefs is to
be exercised by a Judicial
Committee of the said House,
consisting of three chiefs from
among their membership appointed
by the House. See article 274
(4) of the Constitution.
TRADITIONAL COUNCILS
Section 29 (1) of the
Chieftaincy Act, Act 759 has
already been referred to supra.
It is the above provision that
enables a Judicial Committee of
the appropriate Traditional
Council to determine a dispute
concerning a chief or
queenmother, stool or skin below
the status of the Asantehene, a
paramount queenmother, a
paramount stool or a paramount
skin.
By virtue of the decision of the
High Court, Ho in the case of
Republic v The President Buem
Traditional Council; Ex-parte
Isuku II [1991] 1 GLR 455,
it is the full membership of the
Traditional Council that should
appoint the members of the
Judicial Committees. See also
Chieftaincy (Proceedings and
Functions (Traditional Councils)
Regulations, 1972 LI 798.
See Regulations 1 (1) and (2),
2, 3, (1) (2) (3) and (4)
thereof.
Thus, it is the Judicial
Committees of the Traditional
Councils that exercise the
original jurisdiction conferred
on the said Traditional Councils
under section 29 (1) of Act 759
already referred to supra.
It can therefore be concluded
that, the effect of section 26
of Act 759 is that, when a cause
or matter affecting chieftaincy
relates to a paramount
chief/stool or skin, such a
matter should be commenced at
first instance before the
Judicial Committee of the
Regional House.
Section 29 of the Chieftaincy
Act, 759 also has the same
effect when the dispute relates
to any chief/stool, skin or
queenmother of a subordinate
stool to the Asantehene or
Paramount stool, skin or
queenmother. The effect is that
such a dispute must of necessity
be commenced before a Judicial
Committee of the Traditional
Council.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE STOOL
IN RESPECT OF WHICH THIS
PETITION RELATES?
The Petitioner has stated his
name, status and capacity as the
Chief of Kojo Bofour and
Adontenhene of Yeji Traditional
Area. This clearly makes him a
Divisional Chief. The Petitioner
described the 1st
Respondent as an ordinary
resident of Yeji Kuo. He then
described the 2nd
Respondent, Nana Kofi Ayerekete,
as the Nifahene of Yeji
Traditional Area. He then states
that the 3rd
Respondent, Nana Yaw Kagbrese V,
is the Omanhene of Yeji
Traditional Area and President
of the 4th Respondent
Traditional Council.
It should however be noted that
the mere inclusion of the 3rd
Respondent (who is a paramount
Chief of Yeji) by the Petitioner
as a party in the suit does not
automatically render the
petition one that is cognisable
before the Judicial Committee of
the appropriate Regional House
of Chiefs.
This is because it has been held
in several cases that, in
determining the jurisdiction of
the appropriate Judicial
Committee, what is to be
considered and taken into
consideration are the
following:-
i.
The reliefs (s) claimed
ii.
The facts relied upon in proof
of same
iii.
The parties that occupy the
stools or skins that are the
subject of the dispute. (If
the stool is that of the
Asantehene or a Paramount
stool/skin, then the appropriate
forum is the Judicial Committee
of the Regional House, if the
converse is the case, i.e. a
Divisional stool/skin or any
such lower stool/skin, then the
appropriate forum is the
Judicial Committee of the
Traditional Council.
In the instant case for example,
it is the dispute concerning the
Kojo Bofour stool that is in
contention as regards the status
of the Petitioner and that of
the 1st Respondent as
to which of them is the
Adontenhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area. The inclusion
of the 3rd Respondent
therein as a party does not and
will not change the character
and or status of the disputed
Kojo Bofour stool into a
paramountcy
For example, the Petitioner
himself per paragraph 26 of the
petition has pleaded that,
“ordinarily, the present
petition ought to have been
brought before the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council which would
conventionally be empanelled by
the 3rd respondent in
his capacity as the President of
the Yeji Traditional Council.”
Emphasis
Even though the contention that
it is solely the 3rd
Respondent who appoints the
members of the Judicial
Committee has been proven to be
inaccurate, reference the Ex-parte
Isuku case referred to supra,
the substance of the reliefs
claimed before the court
indicate quite convincingly that
the 3rd and 4th
Respondents were merely added as
parties to the petition to make
it easy for the Petitioner to go
to the forum of the Regional
House of Chiefs.
For example, a clear reading of
the reliefs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
(f) (g) (h) and (i) indicate
quite clearly that it is the
purported nomination,
selection and installation of
the 1st Respondent as
the Chief of Kojo Bofour and
Adontehene of Yeji Traditional
Area that is the substance of
all the relief combined therein.
As fate would have it, the
Petitioner was indeed candid
when he laid bare in paragraphs
27 and 28 of the petition what
appears to him to be the real
basis for the commencement of
the petition in the Regional
House of Chiefs and not the Yeji
Traditional Council.
According to the petitioner,
because the 3rd and 4th
Respondent hate him, prudence
and law dictate that they or
their agents or anyone working
with them are unfit to sit as
Judges on any petition initiated
by him the petitioner. Has the
Petitioner made sufficient case
for such a conclusion? Is it
lawful for parties to pick and
choose their own fora on the
flimsiest of grounds? It appears
the petitioner is propounding
his own legal principles on the
requisite guidelines in
commencing chieftaincy
proceedings.
From our analysis of the
pleadings which constitute the
facts relied upon by the
Petitioner, it bears sufficient
emphasis and linkage that the
only reason the 3rd
and 4th respondents
were added as parties was for
the petitioner to try his luck
on the lame excuse of breach of
the rules of natural justice.
There are absolutely no sound,
real, imagined or putative
reasons or basis upon which
these contentions can be
established. It should therefore
be noted that, the addition of
the 3rd and 4th
Respondents to the originating
suit before the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs will
not clothe the court with
jurisdiction.
We also find that the Petitioner
has not been candid with the
judicial process and appears to
have engaged in a fishing
expedition. This is so because,
from the pleadings, the
petitioner indeed invoked the
jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council, by filing a
petition against the nomination,
election and installation of the
1st Respondent as
chief of Kojo Bofour.
The 3rd Respondent in
exercise of his statutory and
administrative powers and duties
enabled the members of the
Judicial Committee of the 4th
Respondents (Traditional
Council) to be appointed and
empanelled. Apprehensive of the
members of the Judicial
Committee so appointed, the
Petitioner on 30/8/2011 filed a
motion in the High Court Sunyani
alleging that members of the
Judicial Committee so appointed
were likely to be biased against
him in the case but the
application was dismissed by
Beresford Acquah J, on
26/3/2013. Thereafter, the
Petitioner discontinued the
chieftaincy petition which he
initiated before the 4th
Respondent Traditional Council.
This matter was admitted by the
Petitioner, reference paragraph
14 of the Reply filed for and on
his behalf.
Having therefore taken into
consideration the antecedents of
the case in totality, and the
substance of the legal arguments
vis-à-vis the constitutional and
statutory provisions as well as
the principles laid down in the
following decided cases, this
court is of the considered
opinion that it is untenable for
the petitioner to deny the
jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee of a Traditional
Council on the flimsy grounds
that it is the President who
empanels the members. Even if
that were the case, which it is
not, an examination of same
reveals that they cannot be
grounds for upholding a claim of
“nemo judex in causa sua”
where it is claimed that the
adjudicator has an interest in
the final outcome of the matter
being a Judge in his own cause.
(See
Agyei-Twum v Attorney-General
and Akwetey) [2005-2006] SCGLR
732.
This is especially so, since the
Petitioner’s case against the
panel on grounds of bias was
dismissed by the High Court,
Sunyani.
The cases we have reviewed are:-
1.
Republic v Western Regional
House of Chiefs, Ex-parte
Aduhene [1994-95] GBR 903
which held that, disputes
involving the occupant of a
divisional stool should not be
heard by the regional house of
chiefs since they do not involve
paramount chiefs. In the above
case, an action which was filed
in the Western Regional House of
Chiefs which involved the
occupant of a divisional chief,
to wit, the Ankobeahene of
Sefwi-Wiawso was quashed by
certiorari.
It should be noted that, in the
Ex-parte Aduhene case referred
to supra, the Supreme Court
explained further that, in
determining the jurisdiction of
the appropriate forum, the
relief claimed and the facts
relied upon to establish the
case of the petitioner are the
determining factors.
S.A Brobbey
in his invaluable book “The
Law of Chieftaincy in Ghana”
writes on the subject matter in
the following terms at page 264
“Another useful guide will be to
examine the object of the relief
or what the relief was aimed at
achieving.
In that search, the question may
be asked against which person or
body and in what capacity may
the judgment ultimately be
given? It will also be useful to
consider the object of enforcing
the final order. A determination
of the beneficiary of the order
may provide another clue in
arriving at the right decision
on the forum.” Emphasis
Considering the above
guidelines, and applying same to
the circumstance of this case
the following will emerge at the
end of the analysis as follows:-
1.
The object of the relief is
that, the Judicial Committee of
the Brong Ahafo Regional House
of Chiefs, would have determined
who is the rightful occupant of
the Kojo Bofour stool and
Adontenhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area. The status of
such a stool is that of a
Divisional stool.
2.
The judgment ultimately will
enure to the benefit of either
the Petitioner or the 1st
Respondent.
3.
Thirdly the judgment will be
referable to a Traditional
Council not a Regional House of
Chiefs.
4.
Finally, at all material times
and for all purposes since the
Kojo Bofour stool is a
Divisional Stool, disputes
concerning such a stool
according to the relevant
statutes is cognisable before a
Traditional Council, reference
L.I. 798 already referred to
supra.
The overriding conclusion
therefore is that, it is
absolutely clear that the
Judicial Committee of the Yeji
Traditional Council and not that
of the Brong Ahafo Regional
House of Chiefs is the
appropriate forum for the
determination of the said
dispute.
2.
It is perhaps useful at this
stage to refer also to the case
of
Konadu v Gyan [1987-88] 1 GLR
571 where the
Supreme Court emphatically held
that the National House of
Chiefs has no jurisdiction over
a matter reserved exclusively
for the jurisdiction of the
traditional council.
3.
See also the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case
Ansu-Agyei v Fimah
already referred to supra.
In that case, the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs had
determined that it had no
jurisdiction to determine the
case because it did not involve
a paramount stool. On appeal to
the Judicial Committee of the
National House, even though it
accepted the fact that the case
did not concern a paramount
stool, it nevertheless proceeded
to hear and determine it, saying
it did so to avoid “a funny
situation”. On a further
appeal to the Supreme Court,
it held that the National House
of Chiefs wrongly assumed
jurisdiction over the case.
This signified the fact that all
cases not involving the status
of the Asantehene or a Paramount
stool/skin must be commenced
before the Traditional councils
and not the Regional House of
Chiefs.
ON THE ISSUE OF COSTS
Learned counsel for the
Petitioner herein, Nana Obiri
Boahen made references to the
award of GH¢10,000.00 costs
against the Petitioner when the
Judicial Committee of the
National House of Chiefs
dismissed their appeal.
Similarly learned counsel also
took issue against the award of
GH¢5,000.00 costs against them
when leave was granted them to
appeal to this court.
In his submissions, learned
counsel argued that the said
costs are not only unreasonable
and excessive but are
unacceptable and on the high
side and should be overturned by
this court.
We observe that the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs
delivered judgment in favour of
the Respondents on 27th
August 2013. We note further
that the Notice of Appeal to the
National House of Chiefs was
filed on the same 27th
August 2013 at 1.55pm.
On the 24th of
October, 2013, the parties
settled the appeal record and
the following constitute the
conditions of the appeal as
executed by the parties.
“Under Rule 19 sub-Rules (1) –
(4) and Rule 20 of the
Chieftaincy (National and
Regional House of Chiefs)
Procedure Rules, 1972 – (C.I.
27) the following conditions are
imposed.”
1.
The Appellant is to deposit cash
a sum of seven-hundred Ghana
cedis (GH¢700.00) to cover the
cost of preparation and
transmission of the Appeal to
the National House of Chiefs,
Kumasi.
2.
The Appellant is to pay a
further sum of Two Thousand
Ghana cedis (GH¢2,000.00) or in
lieu thereof enter into a bond
in like sum with two sureties to
be justified for the due
prosecution of the Appeal.
3.
The above conditions are to be
fulfilled on or before 7th
November 2013.
All references to the appellant
refer to the Petitioner herein.
We observe that, instead of the
GH¢2000.00 payment, the
Petitioner executed a bond on
the same 24th October
2013.
However, as at 10th
September 2014, service of Form
7 on the parties was not
complete and the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs adjourned the suit
sine die.
On the 17th of
February 2015, when the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs, reconvened, the
matter was yet again adjourned
sine die, because a panel
member, Nana Kwesi Agyeman was
unavoidably absent.
However on 17th April
2015 the Judicial Committee of
the National House of Chiefs was
duly constituted and the
following orders were made:-
“Counsel and Judicial Committee
agree that appeal is ripe for
hearing and that written
submissions be filed by counsel
in respect of same. Counsel for
Appellant to file within 3 weeks
from today and Respondents
counsel to respond within 3
weeks from date of service.
Reply if any to be filed within
2 weeks from service of
Respondents response. A date to
be fixed by the Registrar for
mention. Suit adjourned sine
die”.
Thereafter, learned counsel for
the Respondents at the time, W.Y
Oppong on the 20th
May 2015 when the time allowed
the Petitioner to file his
statement of case elapsed, filed
a search which indicated that
the petitioners counsel had not
filed any statement of case as
at that date.
Thereafter the following
applications were filed as
follows:-
1.
Motion to strike out action for
want of prosecution filed by
Respondents on 5th
June 2015.
2.
Motion on notice for extension
of time within which to file
written submission filed by the
petitioner on 10th
June 2015.
It was after these processes
that the appeal was heard and
determined by the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs on 30th
August 2018.
The above clearly indicate that
the Petitioner and his legal
advisers had been tardy at every
stage of the process, hence the
award of costs of GH¢10,000.00
and GH¢5,000.00 respectively
against the Petitioner when
judgment was delivered against
him and also when extension of
time was granted him to appeal
to this court.
There is therefore sufficient
justification for the award of
the costs.
Furthermore, a close scrutiny of
the record of appeal indicates
that at sittings of the lower
adjudicating tribunals, the 1st
Respondent was always present
whilst the 3rd and 4th
Respondents were also always
represented in court.
Besides, we believe this court
can take judicial notice of the
fact that, chiefs and or their
representatives from and around
the country inclusive of Yeji,
who represent themselves or
others have certain customary
protocols they must comply with
when travelling.
For example a chief or His
representative must be decently
attired for a court attendance,
must be seen to travel in
dignity, it is thus uncommon to
expect the 3rd
Respondent’s representative to
travel on public transport and
or eat in a local chop bar for
that matter.
We are strengthened by Rules
3.2.2, 3.2.5 and 3.2.7 of the
Code of Royal Ethics for Chiefs
Part 3, which deals with
specific Rules of Royal Ethics
for Chief as follows:-
3.2.2. “A chief should not eat,
drink or smoke in pubic nor
misbehave himself nor should he
appear under the influence of
alcoholic beverage in public.”
3.2.5 A Chief should appear in
public with dignity and royal
honour and should not indulge in
demeaning conduct unbecoming of
a Chief.” And
3.2.7 A chief should always
appear in appropriate dress code
to distinguish himself as a
chief in accordance with the
customary practice of his
traditional area.”
Reference page 149 of Handbook
on Chieftaincy edited by the
Ministry for Chieftaincy and
Religious Affairs, 2017.
When we consider the delays that
the Petitioner caused in the
prosecuting of his appeal from
the Brong Ahafo Regional House
of Chiefs to the National House
of Chiefs, and the protocols
that chiefs are expected to
comply with in dignity at all
material times, we do not think
the costs awarded were
excessive, unreasonable and
unwarranted. We will thus not
disturb the costs awarded
against the petitioner.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT FOR
REFORMS
We feel obliged to comment on
the time that this case was
commenced in the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs, which
is the 28th day of
March 2013 and the date it was
finally disposed of by this
court on 11th
November 2020. A period of
almost 7 years.
The decision of the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs was
rendered on 27th
August 2013, meaning they took
barely five months to dispose of
the case. Nananom should be
highly commended.
However, the appeal which was
filed by the Petitioner on the
same 27th August 2013
was not prosecuted until the 30th
day of August, 2018, a period of
almost 5 years. This is quite
disturbing. The appeal against
the decision of the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs was filed on 2nd
May 2019 pursuant to leave
granted and this was completed
in this court on 11th
November 2020. We commenced this
delivery by referring to
excerpts from the Report of the
Committee of Experts on
proposals for a draft
Constitution of Ghana which led
to the Constitution of 1992.
In view of the inordinate delay
in the prosecution of this
appeal, we deem it expedient to
once again refer to paragraph
141 of that report on page 157
which states as follows;-
141 “The Committee has
taken cognisance of the fact
that the social and economic
significance of chieftaincy in
our society has been
significantly eroded by the
proliferation of chieftaincy
disputes. Much of the blame
for this unhappy situation
attached to the Chiefs,
traditional authorities and
their people themselves.”
Emphasis
How do we end proliferation of
disputes when a simple case
involving the nomination,
election and installation of a
chief over the Kojo Bofour
stool, a Divisional stool for
that matter will linger on for
periods of aggregate of close to
seven years , 2013 – 2020. This
definitely is not a good
testament.
We will therefore urge for
urgent reform measures in the
procedure rules of the Judicial
Committee of all the Houses of
Chiefs and the Traditional
Councils to make their
adjudicatory roles more time
conscious. For example, it
should be possible for reforms
to be made in the empanelling of
members of the Judicial
Committees such that, apart from
the regular panel members, there
will also be waiting members of
say (two) who will be on standby
to join the panel anytime a
regular member for one reason or
the other cannot attend. This
system has worked perfectly for
the military and we believe can
be adapted with some
modifications to work for the
chieftaincy institution as well.
Even though it will involve some
increase in administrative
expenses, the benefits are
enormous and will result into
social cohesion and peace in our
communities.
Secondly, timelines should be
given all adjudicating Judicial
Committees from time of
commencement up to time of
completion of cases. This is
because, we believe that the
timely and prompt resolution of
disputes by our revered
traditional rulers will prevent
the escalation of chieftaincy
disputes in the country as was
bemoaned by the Committee of
Experts Report, referred to
supra.
Thirdly, amendments should be
made to the procedure rules that
will require members of a
Judicial Committee whose terms
have lapsed to be granted
extended terms to complete the
adjudicatory process rather than
to have the cases started afresh
if they are not completed during
the current limited period of
extensions that are granted.
CONCLUSION
Having established that the
substance, nature and effect of
the reliefs claimed by the
Petitioner against the
Respondents before the Judicial
Committee of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs
indicated quite clearly without
any shadow of doubt that the
Kojo Bofour stool is a
divisional stool whose dispute
is a cause or matter cognizable
before the Judicial Committee of
the Yeji Traditional Council,
this court is unable to allow
the appeal filed by the
Petitioner.
Under these circumstances, the
appeal by the Petitioner against
the decision of the Judicial
Committee of the National House
of Chiefs dated 30th
August 2018 fails entirely and
is accordingly dismissed.
It was for the above stated
reasons that we unanimously
dismissed the appeal on the 11th
of November 2020.
V. J.
M. DOTSE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
G. TORKORNOO (MRS.)
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
C. J. HONYENUGA
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
PROF. H. J. A. N. MENSA-BONSU
(MRS.)
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
NANA OBRI BOAHEN FOR THE
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.
KWADWO ADU BOSOMPEM FOR THE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.
|