[1961]DLSC546 • November 22, 1961 • Supreme Court •
AHENKORA II vs. OFE
The appeal arose from a chieftaincy dispute concerning the Adowsena stool. Ntiamoah Kofi III had been destooled by the Akim Kotoku State Council on 1 September 1952, and the appellant, Nana Owusu Ahenkora II, was later enstooled on 26 March 1955. On 5 November 1955, certain elders and electors of the stool, led by the first respondent, Kwabena Ofe, preferred charges against the appellant before the Akim Kotoku State Council, alleging among other things that he was not a fit and proper person to occupy the stool and that he had unlawfully aided the destoolment of Ntiamoah Kofi III. Because the matter was considered constitutional in nature, the Governor appointed a Committee of Enquiry under section 8 of the State Councils Colony and Southern Togoland Ordinance, 1952, to enquire into the dispute. The Committee reported that no charges had been proved to merit the destoolment of Ntiamoah Kofi III and concluded that he had not been validly destooled and therefore remained the Ohene of Adowsena, not the appellant. This factual basis appears in the opening narrative of the judgment beginning: “This appeal... arises out of matters relating to the destoolment of a former occupant of the stool of Adowsena...” and in the reproduced charges and Gazette notification of the Committee’s findings.
read moreJUDGMENT OF LORD KEITH J. Lord Keith delivered the judgment of their Lordships. This appeal, by final leave of the Ghana Court of appeal, arises out of matters relating to the destoolment of a former occupant of the stool of Adowsena, Ntiamoah Kofi III, and the enstoolment in his place of the appellant, Nana Owusu Ahenkora II, as Ohene of Adowsena. The history of the matter is as follows. On the 1st September, 1952, the then Ohene, Ntiamoah Kofi III, was destooled by the Akim Kotoku State Council, the competent authority under the State Councils (Colony and Southern Togoland) Ordinance, 1952.1(1) The precise reason for his destoolment does not appear apart from an indication in one of the documents in the case that it was for purported infringement of some sacred custom. Following the destoolment the State Council ordered the properties belonging to the stool and the stool itself to be delivered up forthwith to the customary custodian, the Gyasehene of Adowsena, “until suc.....