[2000]DLSC106 • October 18, 2000 • Supreme Court •
AGYEI AND ANOTHER vs FORI AND OTHERS
The case concerns a dispute over the eligibility to ascend the Adum stool, a traditional chieftaincy position in Ashanti. The applicants challenged the nomination, election, and installation of the second defendant as Adumhene, claiming he was ineligible under the customary law. The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of the 'ayete' system of succession, a customary practice allowing family members of a wife's family to ascend a patrilineal stool. The National House of Chiefs had ruled in favor of the respondents, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court majority.
read moreJUDGEMENT Edward Wiredu JSC. The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been conferred by article 133(1) of the Constitution, 1992 which reads as follows: “The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules of court.”(The emphasis is mine.) Pursuant to this provision, rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (CI 16) was enacted to regulate the grounds and conditions under which this power may be invoked. Consequently, this rule provides as follows: “54. The Court may review any decision made or given by it on any of the following grounds— (a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of justice; (b) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was given.” (The emphasis is mine.) Clearly, the juri...