|
JUDGMENT
By his writ of summons issued
out of this Court on 10th May,
1999, the Plaintiff seeks to
invoke the original jurisdiction
of this Court with the following
endorsement on the writ.
1. A declaration that the
Defendant having once been
convicted of an offence
involving moral turpitude, is
not qualified to be a Chief and
cannot therefore continue to
occupy the Gyase Stool or any
other Stool of Akyawkrom and
Asenua.
2. An order of injunction
restraining the Defendant from
in any way performing any
functions as a Chief.
The writ is accompanied by an 18
paragraphed Statement of Case
the relevant portions of which
read as follows:
3. The Defendant acts as the
Gyasehene of Akyawkrom and
Asenua; he was purportedly
enstooled as such on 22nd
August, 1993.
4. The Defendant is also known
in private life as Kwaku Okyere.
5. In February, 1986 or
thereabout, the Defendant was
charged with the offence of
causing harm to a person whose
name Plaintiff cannot now
supply.
6. The Defendant was arraigned
before the Circuit Court, Kumasi
presided over by His Honour M.K.
Adzovie. He pleaded not guilty
to the charge and the case was
set down for the trial.
7. On 26th February, 1986 the
Defendant was found guilty of
the charge by His Honour M.K.
Adzovie, was convicted and
sentenced to a term of 12 months
in hard labour and ordered to
pay fine of ¢20,000.00 or to
serve a term of 2 years
imprisonment in default;
¢15,000.00 of which fine if paid
was to be given to the
complainant, as compensation.
8. The Defendant appealed
against the decision of the
Circuit Court to the High Court,
Kumasi.
9. On 22nd October, 1990, the
High Court, Kumasi, presided
over by His Lordship Justice
K.R. Korsah, dismissed the
Defendant’s appeal and ordered
that “….. the appellant shall
return to prison to continue to
serve his sentence or
sentences.”
10. This conviction took place
before the Defendant was
purportedly enstooled as a
Chief.
11. However, under Article 275
of the Constitution of Ghana,
1992 ….” a person shall not be
qualified as a Chief if he has
been convicted for high treason,
treason, high crime or for an
offence involving the security
of the State, fraud, dishonesty
or moral turpitude.
12. It is the contention of the
Plaintiff that the offence for
which the Defendant was
convicted involved moral
turpitude.
13. Defendant completed the
relevant form for submission to
the National House of Chiefs and
presented same to the Asantehene
who in view of Defendant’s
conviction above-referred to,
refused to send same to the
National House of Chiefs.
14. Defendant is not registered
at the National House of Chiefs
as a Chief.
15. Despite the provision of
Article 275 of the Constitution,
the Defendant continues to sit
on the Chiefly Stool exercising
all the functions as a Chief.
16. The Plaintiff contends that
the continued exercise of the
functions of a Chief by the
Defendant is inconsistent with
and in contravention of the
provision of the Constitution.
The Defendant by his Statement
of Case joins issue with most of
the averments in the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Case but admits the
salient parts which have
provoked the present dispute
between himself and the
Plaintiff.
We have earlier this morning,
delivered our judgment in Suit
No. 3/94: Baffour Kwame Fante
Aduamoa II vrs. Nana Gyakorang
Adu Twum II, wherein like the
instant suit, the Plaintiffs
also sought, inter alia, to
destool their Chief on grounds
that he was disqualified by
Article 275 of the 1992
Constitution. We took the
trouble in that judgment to
restate the basic principles
underlying the invocation of our
original jurisdiction. We adopt
and rely on that exposition in
this judgment. And we
accordingly hold that though the
Plaintiffs endorsement has been
couched in a way as to make it
appear constitutional, it’s
ultimate result will be to
determine whether the Defendant
was qualified to be enstooled as
a Chief — an issue which by
Section 66 of the Chieftaincy
Act 1971 (Act 370) is obviously
a cause or matter affecting
Chieftaincy.
Since we do not have concurrent
original jurisdiction in causes
or matters affecting Chieftaincy
with the Judicial Committees of
the Traditional Councils and the
Regional Houses of Chiefs, we
conclude that our original
jurisdiction has been wrongly
invoked.
We accordingly decline
jurisdiction in this suit.
EDWARD WIREDU,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
BAMFORD-ADDO, (MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
AMPIAH,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ADJABENG,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ACQUAH,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
ATUGUBA,
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
AKUFFO, (MS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
Ekua Hayfron-Benjamin for
Plaintiff
John Brefo for Defendant |
