|
Chieftaincy - Destoolment -
Setting aside judgment -
Judicial Committee -Contempt of
court - Cause
or matter affecting chieftaincy
-
HEADNOTES
The facts giving rise to this
interlocutory appeal are that
four persons in their
capacities as kingmakers of
Bibiani/Krotohene Stool under
Sefwi Anhwiaso paramouncy in the
Western Region filed destoolment
charges in the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiso
Traditional Council against the
occupant of the Bibiani/Krontihene
Stool in the person of
applicant/ respondent/
respondent, hereafter referred
to as respondent, Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council delivered a
judgment upholding the charges
levelled against the respondent,
destooled him and ordered him to
hand over all stool properties
to the Akwamuhene, one of the
Petitioners, to take care of
them until a substantive chief
was installed, the respondent
filed an appeal in the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs against
the decision of the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council and held
that delivered judgment in the
appeal and held that the trial
before the Judicial Committee of
the Sefwi Anhwiaso Traditional
Council was fraught with such
inconsistencies that it could
not stand as a decision worthy
of acceptance. They proceeded to
allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council and ordered
a retrial with an entirely new
panel which shall sit at a
neutral venue, preferably
Bibiani. This decision has not
been set aside either on appeal
or otherwise and it appears from
the record that there has been
no retrial On the back of the
judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs,
respondent filed a motion on
notice in the High Court, Sefwi
Wiawso in October, 2012 praying
for the committal of the
respondents/appellants/appellants,
hereafter referred to as
appellants, for contempt of
court alleging they had
continuously disregarded and
disobeyed the judgment of the
Judicial Committee of the
Western Regional House of Chiefs
which judgment he brought to
their notice specifically
HELD :-
In our understanding, this
section affords a defence to a
chief who would qualify as such
under the Act and who satisfies
the factual conditions stated
clearly in the provision.
Therefore, it is only a defence
which, depending on the proven
facts after a trial, may be
upheld or dismissed so it cannot
prevent a court from conducting
a trial in a contempt matter
even if the respondent were a
qualified chief. We dismiss this
ground of objection as well.
With these legal objections of
the appellants disposed of, we
do not find anything on the
record that suggests that the
High Court judge in dismissing
the appellants' motion exercised
his discretion wrongly. This
appeal is accordingly dismissed
as being without merit.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370),
section 27
Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759)
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Republic v Sito, Ex parte
Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
COUNSEL.
ANA OBIRI BOAHEN FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.
CHARLES OWUSU ANSAH FOR THE
APPLICANT
/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PWAMANG, JSC:-
The facts giving rise to this
interlocutory appeal are that on
28/7/97 four persons in their
capacities as kingmakers of
Bibiani/Krotohene Stool under
Sefwi Anhwiaso paramouncy in the
Western Region filed destoolment
charges in the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiso
Traditional Council against the
occupant of the
Bibiani/Krontihene Stool in the
person of
applicant/respondent/respondent,
hereafter referred to as
respondent. The Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council delivered a
judgment on 9/9/1999 upholding
the charges levelled against the
respondent, destooled him and
ordered him to hand over all
stool properties to the
Akwamuhene, one of the
Petitioners, to take care of
them until a substantive chief
was installed. However, on
16/9/1999 the respondent filed
an appeal in the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs against
the decision of the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council. On 3rd
August, 2004 the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs
delivered judgment in the appeal
and held that the trial before
the Judicial Committee of the
Sefwi Anhwiaso Traditional
Council was fraught with such
inconsistencies that it could
not stand as a decision worthy
of acceptance. They proceeded to
allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council and ordered
a retrial with an entirely new
panel which shall sit at a
neutral venue, preferably
Bibiani. This decision has not
been set aside either on appeal
or otherwise and it appears from
the record that there has been
no retrial.
On the back of the judgment of
the Judicial Committee of the
Western Regional House of
Chiefs, respondent filed a
motion on notice in the High
Court, Sefwi Wiawso in October,
2012 praying for the committal
of the
respondents/appellants/appellants,
hereafter referred to as
appellants, for contempt of
court alleging they had
continuously disregarded and
disobeyed the judgment of the
Judicial Committee of the
Western Regional House of Chiefs
which judgment he brought to
their notice specifically. In
respondent's affidavit in
support of his motion for
contempt he deposed to conduct
on the part of the appellants
which he claims amounts to
contempt of court.
Upon service of the motion on
the appellants they filed
individual affidavits in
opposition on 23/11/12. The 1st
appellant, who is the paramount
chief of Sefwi Anhwiaso and
President of the Sefwi Anhwiaso
Traditional Council, in his
affidavit stated that the
respondent is not the chief of
Bibiani and that it is
misleading and fraudulent for
him to so depose in his
affidavit in support. He said
that 2nd appellant was
introduced to him as the chief
of Bibiani by the kingmakers so,
to him, unless the court
determined who was the chief of
Bibiani, it could not decide the
issue of the contempt. In any
event, he denied showing
disrespect to the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs. 2nd
appellant in his affidavit
deposed that he had been
customarily selected, nominated
and enstooled as the chief of
Bibiani and, per paragraph 12 of
his affidavit, this took place
in October 1999 after the
respondent lost his case in the
Sefwi Anhwiaso Traditional
Council. He said that it is he
and not the respondent who is
the chief of Bibiani and that
the whole application related to
a cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy so his lawyer would
object to the jurisdiction of
the court. He nevertheless also
denied showing disrespect and
disregard or looking down on the
judgment of the Judicial
Committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs.
In line with the hint in their
affidavits in opposition, the
appellants brought an
application to set aside or
dismiss the motion for
attachment on the grounds that
it did not disclose a cause of
action against the appellants
and secondly it was a cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy
over which the High Court lacked
jurisdiction. This application
was dismissed by the High Court
on 19/12/14 and appellants
appealed to the Court of Appeal.
On 28th October, 2015 the Court
of Appeal unanimously dismissed
the appeal wherefore the
appellants further appealed to
this court.
We have perused the record of
appeal, attended to the written
statements of case of the
parties and given consideration
to the appellants' grounds in
objecting to the determination
of the motion on notice for
contempt on its merits. The
appellants claim that the 2nd
appellant is a rival chief
installed after the destoolment
of respondent but the record
before us shows that the notice
of appeal against the decision
of the Judicial Committee of the
Sefwi Anhwiaso Traditional
Council was filed on 16/9/1999
whereas 2nd appellant was
purportedly enstooled in
October, 1999. By the provisions
of section 27 of the
Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370),
the decision destooling the
respondent was stayed by the
filing of the notice of appeal
on 16/9/1999 so any status of
Chief purportedly acquired by
2nd appellant in apparent
violation of the statute cannot
turn this matter into a cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy. In
his supplementary affidavit in
support of the motion for
attachment for contempt,
respondent deposed that 2nd
appellant was aware of the
appeal against the decision of
the Judicial Committee of the
Sefwi Anhwiaso Traditional
Council and was part of those
who represented the petitioners
at the settlement of the records
for that appeal.
We understand the plaint of the
respondent to be that the
appellants' have conducted
themselves in ways that
undermine the administration of
justice. The fact that
appellants claim 2nd appellant
to be a rival chief does not
prevent the court from enquiring
into whether their conduct in
law amounts to contempt or not.
We consider this ground of
objection as misconceived and we
dismiss same. See the case of
Republic v Sito, Ex parte
Fordjour [2001-2002] SCGLR 322.
The other ground of objection
argued by the appellants before
us is that they have a defence
to the case in section 61 of the
new Chieftaincy Act, 2008
(Act 759) which provides as
follows;
"A chief is not liable to a
charge of contempt of court in
court proceedings because of an
act done or a statement made in
good faith in respect of or
during legitimate customary
proceedings or practices which
are not in wilful violation of a
specific order of a court".
In our understanding, this
section affords a defence to a
chief who would qualify as such
under the Act and who satisfies
the factual conditions stated
clearly in the provision.
Therefore, it is only a defence
which, depending on the proven
facts after a trial, may be
upheld or dismissed so it cannot
prevent a court from conducting
a trial in a contempt matter
even if the respondent were a
qualified chief. We dismiss this
ground of objection as well.
With these legal objections of
the appellants disposed of, we
do not find anything on the
record that suggests that the
High Court judge in dismissing
the appellants' motion exercised
his discretion wrongly. This
appeal is accordingly dismissed
as being without merit.
Before resting this delivery we
wish to observe that the record
of this appeal was too chaotic
and contained a lot of
irrelevant material which made
consideration of this otherwise
straight forward interlocutory
appeal burdensome for the court.
The appellants' lawyer in his
statement of case complained of
the disorderly nature of the
record but failed to take steps
to rectify it. Lawyers of
parties to appeals must take the
summons for settlement of appeal
records seriously by personally
appearing before the registrar
and directing him to exclude
material that is irrelevant to
the determination of the appeal
and arranging processes in an
orderly manner. They leave the
matter in inexperienced hands
and we at times end up with
bulky records of appeal that
unnecessarily raise the cost of
the record for the parties and
make appellate litigation far
more expensive than it ought to
be. The time will soon come when
the court will hold lawyers
responsible for extra costs
incurred by their clients that
could have been avoided if they
acted with diligence in
settlement of records of
appeal.
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
S. A. B. AKUFFO (MS)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
V. J. M DOTSE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
P.
BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
N. S. GBADEGBE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
NANA OBIRI BOAHEN FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.
CHARLES OWUSU ANSAH FOR THE
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. |
