|
I
JUDGMENT
ESSILFIE-BONDZIE, JA.
This is an appeal
lodged by Opanin Kwadwo Fordjour (hereinafter called the
Appellant) against the Ruling of the High Court Sunyani
delivered on the 9th August 1999. Osabarima Okokyeredom
Kwadwo Sito I is the Respondent.
The legal proceedings
which culminated in the Ruling being assailed were
commenced by the appellant in pursuance of a leave
granted to have Osabarima Okokyeredom Kwadwo Sito
(Respondent) committed to prison for being in contempt
and disregard of the decisions of the Brong Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs, of the National House of
Chiefs and the Supreme Court. The complaint was that the
Respondent sought to portray, hold and parade himself as
the Paramount Chief of the Banda Traditional Area and
that on the 29/12/98 rode in a palanquin amid drumming,
singing and merry making as the Paramount Chief of the
Banda Traditional Area.
It is patently clear
from the record of proceedings that there had been a
protracted chieftaincy dispute between the Kralongo
Royal Family of Banda and the Petelli Royal Family of
Banda Kabrono. In the course of their history Nana Dwuru
II from the Kralongo Family occupied the stool from
1936-1977. On the death of Nana Dwuru II however the
Kralongo Royal Family refused to hand over the Black
Stool to the Petelli Family to enable them to enstool
Nana Worosa of Petelli Family) for as claimed by the
Petelli Royal Family the system of ascension to the
Banda Paramount Stool is rotatory i.e. if a member of
Kralongo Family occupies the stool and dies the stool
automatically goes to the Petelli Family whose elders
elect one of them to ascend to the stool and vice-versa.
The evidence on record
revealed that on the death of Nana Dwuru II the Petelli
Royal House purporting to enstool Nana Worosa in
compliance with the rotatory system requested the
Kralongo Royal Family who were in possession to hand
over the Black Stool, the symbol of the Paramount Stool,
to the Petelli Family to enable Nana Worosa to become
the Paramount chief of the Banda Traditional Area. The
undisputed facts disclose that the Kralongo Royal Family
refused to hand over the Black Stool. Instead the elders
of Kralongo Family claiming to be king-makers of the
Banda stool enstooled one George Miller from the same
Kralongo Family as Omanhene of Banda under the name of
Nana Kofi Dwuru III.
When the Petelli Family
complained about this act the Kralongo Family responded
by filing a petition in the Brong Ahafo House of Chiefs
against Nana Worosa’s enstoolment to be declared null
and void “as he has not been nominated, elected and
installed as Banda Omanhene by the Kingmakers”. The
Petelli Family who were the Respondent and who are the
appellants in this appeal counter-claimed and sought the
following reliefs
“(a) An order
compelling the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Petitioners to
hand over the paramount stool of Banda to the Petelli
Royal House in accordance with custom.
(b) A declaration that
the alleged installation of George Miller alias Kwadwo
Miller as the Omanhene of Banda is contrary to Banda
custom, unconstitutional and therefore void and without
effect”.
The Brong Ahafo House
of Chiefs heard evidence after a critical evaluation and
analysis of some declared the enstoolment of George
Miller as null and void and entered judgment for the
present appellants on their counterclaim. The tribunal
ordered the Kralongo Royal Family of Banda to convey the
Paramount Black Stool to the Petelli Royal House in
accordance with custom and this was to be done on or
before the 15/11/88.
It is on record that
not satisfied the Petitioners led by Nana Kofi Mensah
(Gyasehene of Banda) and others lodged an appeal against
the decision at the National House of Chiefs, which said
house confirmed the decision of the Brong Ahafo House of
Chiefs. The Petitioners again appealed to the Supreme
Court and here again their appeal was dismissed.
It is clear from the
record that the issues which were raised for the
determination of the Brong Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs were:
(a) Which customary
body or institution is responsible for enstooling the
occupant of the Banda Paramount Stool.
(b) Whether or not the
system of succession is rotatory.
(c) Whether or not it
is the turn of the Petelli or Kralongo.
In affirming the
decisions of the two lower Chieftaincy Tribunals His
Lordship Justice E.K. Wiredu reading the judgment of the
Supreme Court said inter alia “The judgment of the
Judicial Committee of the National House+ of Chiefs
against which the present appeal has been brought is
sound and right, I affirm their findings that:
(a) The Banda Paramount
Stool rotates between the Kralongo and the Petelli Royal
House.
(b) That on the death
of late Nana Dwuru II who was from Kralongo House the
lot fell to the Petelli House to provide a candidate.
(The emphasis is mine)
(c) That the
presentation of George Miller by the appellants was
contrary to custom and therefore ought to be rejected
and
(d) That the
respondent’s case is made out and are entitled to
judgment.
It is important also to
note that in the judgment of the Judicial Committee of
the Brong Ahafo House of Chiefs which was confirmed by
the Supreme Court, the tribunal made the following
mandatory Order:
“On the evidence of
Nana Telli which we have accepted the Black Stool should
be conveyed to the Petelli Royal House in accordance
with custom. We accordingly order the 1st petitioner
Nana Kofi Mensah, the 3rd Nana Kwase Wuromo the
Krontihene of Banda, the 4th Petitioner Nana Sodoyi the
Oyokohene of Banda and Nana Sio Nyame the Akyeamehene to
convey the Black Stool to the House of Petelli Royal
House, Krabrano not later than 15/11/88”.
It must be remarked
that on the 15/11/88 the Kralongo Royal House failed to
surrender the Black Stool to the Petelli Family. After
the decision of the Supreme Court on the 6/6/95 the
Kralongo House still failed to return the Black Stool to
the Petelli House. On the 18th October 1997 Opanin
Woroso Petelli candidate for the Paramount Stool of
Banda died when the Black Stool had still not been
returned to the Petelli Royal House.
It is the case of the
Appellant herein that since the Black Stool is the only
link between the two royal Houses, Nana Worosa could not
be enstooled as the Paramount Chief of Banda while his
ancestral Stool the Paramount Stool was in possession of
the Kralongo Royal House.
It is not returned and
indeed the Respondent who belongs to the Kralongo Royal
Family has admitted that on the 23/12/97 when the Black
Stool had not been returned in compliance with the
Court's order and which was still in possession of the
Kralongo Family he was enstooled as the Paramount Chief
of the Banda Traditional area by the Kralongo Royal
Family.
On the 4th of February
1999 however appellant Opanin Kwadwo Fordjour of the
Petelli Royal House appealed to the High Court Sunyani
in pursuant to leave granted, to have the Respondent
Okokyeredom Kwadwo Sito I committed to prison for being
in contempt of the Brong Ahafo House of Chiefs in the
decision which was confirmed by the National House of
Chiefs and the Supreme Court.
In his Ruling the
learned judge of the High Court failed to decide the
issue of contempt one way or the other. This has
provoked the appeal in this Court by the appellant on
the ground that “the learned judge completely avoided
the issue before him and incapacitated himself from
resolving it.”
In paragraphs 7 and 8
of the affidavit of the appellant in support of his
application for contempt against the Respondent he
stated as follows:
“(7) That the
Respondent herein who styles himself as Osabarima
Okokyeredom Kwadwo Sito I has been parading himself as
the paramount chief of Banda Traditional Area in
contempt of the decision of the Court’s respondent and
marked Exhibit “KF2” and a ‘Daily Graphic report on the
same marked as Exhibit ‘KF3’.”
Significantly in his
affidavit in opposition to the application for contempt
the Respondent admitted the offence but offered an
excuse. Thus in paragraph 17 of the said affidavit in
opposition, he deposed as follows
“(17) That I admit
paragraph 15 and state that following the death of the
late Nana Kwadwo Woroso, the Omanhene of Banda
Traditional Area, the elders of Kralongo Royal House
whose turn it is to enstool the next Omanhene have
nominated, elected and enstoled me as OKOKYEREDOM
OSABARIMA, KWADWO SITO I and my enstoolment is not in
any way whatsoever contemptuous of the decisions of the
Judicial Committee of Brong Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs and the Supreme Court”.
The implication of the
contents of the above affidavit of the Respondent is
that after George Miller left the stool following the
decision of the National House of Chiefs which confirmed
the judgment of the Brong Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs
that the Paramount Stool should be surrendered to the
Petelli Family, the elders of Kralongo Royal Family
enstooled the Respondent on the 23/12/97 as the Omanhene
while the Orders made by the Judicial Committee on the
21/11/88 and confirmed by the National House of Chiefs
on the 21/3/91 and that of the Supreme Court on the
6/6/95 had not been obeyed.
Now the issue is
whether or not the Respondent though a stranger to the
proceedings initiated by the Kralongo Family of which he
is a member against Nana Kwadwo Worosa & 2 others of the
Petelli Family, had acted in contempt of the decisions
of the Judicial Committee of the National House of
Chiefs and the Supreme Court.
It has been contended
on behalf of the Respondent that even though he admitted
that he was enstooled Omanhene of Banda and acted as
such, the Respondent was a stranger to the proceedings
which terminated at the Supreme Court in favour of the
Appellant. And therefore he committed no offence. The
settled principle of law is that where a person who was
not a party to a suit had acted in a way which amounted
to disrespect to the Court’s authority he is guilty of
contempt. However the Court would convict a stranger for
breach of an order made by it only if it had knowledge
of its existence. See United Telephone O. vs. Dale
(1884) 25 CH D 778 and Seaward vrs. Paterson (1897) 1 Ch
545, CA.
In the case of Interim
Executive Committee of Apostolic Divine Church of Ghana
vs. Interim Executive Council and others (No. 2)
(1984-86) 2 GLR p. 181 at 182 when the High Court was
confronted with a similar situation held that “ The
Court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt, a person
who though not a party to the action as in this case,
chose to assist others in doing of that which he well
know was prohibited by an order of the Court”.
In this case as already
admitted The Judicial Committee ordered Kralongo Royal
Family, the petitioners led by Kofi Mensah to surrender
the Black Stool to the Petelli Royal Family before
15/11/88. The Petitioners did not comply and The Supreme
Court gave its decision on the 6/6/95 confirming the
order of the Judicial Committee. The Respondent as said
was enstooled the Paramount Chief of the Banda
Traditional Area on the 23/12/97 while the Black Stool
was still in the possession of the Kralongo Family from
which the Respondent hails. And the admitted evidence
was that the Respondent acted as Omanhene by riding in a
palanquin on the 29/12/98 and behaved conspicuously as
the Omanhene of the Banda Traditional Area (see Exhibits
K.F. 2 and K. F. 3).
It is worthy to note
that they decided to return the Black Stool to the
Petelli Royal Family on the 15/9/98 when the Kralongo
Family and Respondent knew that Opanin Worosa the
candidate of the Petelli Family for the Paramount Stool
had died on the 18th October 1997.
It was argued by
counsel for the Respondent that since Nana Worosa was
enstooled by the elders of Kralongo and died as such. In
accordance with the rotatory system the Kralongo Family
were right in enstooling the Respondent as the Paramount
Chief of Banda. This argument cannot be tenable. There
is no evidence on record to establish the claim that
while the paramount stool was still in the custody and
possession of the Kralongo Family Nana Worosa could have
been enstooled as the Omanhene of the Banda Paramount
Stool. This is so because the Black Stool is the only
link between the two Royal Families and its possession
is by custom the only power or authority which gives the
Royal House whose turn it is to reign. It cannot be
otherwise. For as Justice Wiredu stated in the decision
of the Supreme Court “on the death of the Late Nana
Dwuru II who was from Kralongo House the lot fell to the
Petelli House to provide a candidate”. Nana Worosa’s (of
the Petelli Royal House) position was that of a
candidate or Omanhene elect. He never became the
Paramount Chief of the Banda Traditional area before his
death as the ancestral stool had not been surrendered
and was still in possession of the Kralongo Family.
I hold that the
Respondent's conduct in allowing himself to be made the
Omanhene of the Banda Traditional Area and acting as
such when the mandatory order of the Judicial Committee
had not been obeyed amounted to Contempt of Court. For
as OSWALD in the 3rd Edition page 6 of his book has
defined “To speak generally contempt of Court may be
said to be constituted by conduct that tends to bring
the authority and administration of the Law into
disrespect or disregard ....................”
This definition was
adopted by Abban J (as he then was) in the case of the
Republic vs. Moffat, Ex parte Allotey (1971) 2 GLR p.
391 at p. 392 holding (1).
In the United Telephone
Co. vs. Dale (1884) 25 Ch D 778 Pearson J at p. 78 said
“The Court would be to
a great extent incapable of doing its duty to itself, as
well as to her majesty's subjects if it were to say,
that with perfectly accurate knowledge of the Order of
the Court, a defendant is at liberty to defy the Court’s
authority……………….”.
Thus contempt of Court
is committed where a person who was or was not a party
to a suit had acted in a way which tended to bring the
authority and administration of the law into disrespect
or disregard.
In this case, it is my
judgment that the Respondent's conduct in allowing
himself to be enstooled by the Kralongo Royal House as
the Paramount Chief of Banda and acting as Omanhene by
riding in a palanquin on the 29/12/98 when the orders of
Judicial Council of the Brong Ahafo Region had not been
obeyed amounted to contempt of Court. The appeal is
therefore allowed and the Ruling of the High Court
Sunyani is set aside.
A. ESSILFIE-BONDZIE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
TWUMASI, JA:
I agree that the appeal
be allowed.
P. K. TWUMASI
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
FARKYE, JA
I also agree
S. T. FARKYE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
COUNSEL
MR. W. Y. OPPONG FOR
APPLICANT/APPELLANT.
MR.
E. ASAFU-ADJEI FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT |
