REPUBLIC vs. ADA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX PARTE NENE OKUNNO II [1971]DLHC2148

Date	1971-01-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2148

ABBAN J.

AKOTIA FOR THE APPLICANT.

ALLOTEI-COFIE FOR THE COMPLAINANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2148
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ADA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX PARTE NENE OKUNNO II <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 412<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
22 JANUARY 1971.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AKOTIA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant herein sought for two reliefs, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(a) An
order of certiorari to have the order of Ada Traditional Council dated 2nd May,
1968 quashed. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) An
order prohibiting the said Traditional Council from hearing the charges of
deposition filed against him by the complainant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Briefly,
the applicant herein is Nene Tsiatey Lanuer Okunno II, Divisional Chief of the Danmebiawe
Division of Ada. The complainant, a member of Danmebiawe Division, believing
that the applicant had committed certain customary offences, filed charges of
deposition against him before the Ada Traditional Council. The applicant
appeared before the said council and pleaded not liable to those charges. The
traditional council then made an interlocutory order suspending the applicant
as a chief pending the hearing of the said charges. The charges are yet to be
gone into by the Ada Traditional Council. But, in the meantime, the applicant
has brought the present application asking for the reliefs above stated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It must
be noted that learned counsel for the applicant in due course had to abandon
that part of the application dealing with certiorari, because it became obvious
that he was out of time so far as certiorari was concerned since the
application was not made within six months after 2 May 1968 (see the Supreme
[High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 59, r. 3). And
since no enlargement of time was granted the application for certiorari was
found to be grossly misconceived. Consequently arguments were heard only in
respect of the order for prohibition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Ada Traditional Council
is not properly seised of the complainant’s destoolment charges as those
charges were not first gone into by the stool elders of the applicant before
they were lodged with the Ada Traditional Council. Counsel therefore submitted
that the procedure adopted in bringing the matter before the council was
contrary to the provisions of the Chieftaincy (Destoolment Proceedings)
Regulations, 1963 (L.I. 309), and in those circumstances the Ada Traditional
Council cannot exercise jurisdiction over the matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel for the complainant in his reply submitted that the charges were duly
lodged with the Ada Traditional Council. He contended that exhibit B attached
to the supplemental affidavit filed in opposition by the complainant showed
that the meeting of the stool elders of the applicant was held on 7 March 1967
and following the outcome thereof, the elders authorised and empowered the
complainant to lodge the charges with the traditional council. Learned counsel
further contended that the list of the applicant</main>