REPUBLIC vs. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE ON WIAMOASEHENE STOOL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE OPPONG KWAME AND ANOTHER [1971]DLHC2153

REPUBLIC vs. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE ON WIAMOASEHENE STOOL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE OPP... [1971]DLHC2153

Date	1971-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2153

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

C. B. ZWENNES FOR THE APPLICANTS.

M. A. F. RIBEIRO STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS.

DR. OHENE-DJAN FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2153
																																						<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>vs. <o:p></o:p>CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE ON WIAMOASEHENE STOOL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE OPPONG KWAME
AND ANOTHER <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 321<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:
27 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">

C. B. ZWENNES FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

M. A. F. RIBEIRO, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE FIRST
AND SECOND RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. OHENE-DJAN FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT.<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
hotly contested application for an order of certiorari in respect of certain
steps taken by various bodies in the proceedings concerning the destoolment of
Nana Pim Owusu Ansah, one-time Wiamoasehene, in the Agona traditional Area,
Ashanti. The bodies concerned are the Agona Traditional Council, the
Chieftaincy Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Siriboe, the Chieftaincy
Secretariat and the National Liberation Council. The applicants are Nana Oppong
Kwame, who claims to be the Wiamoasehene, and Obaapanin Adjoa Amponsah,
Queenmother of Wiamoase. The respondents are the Committee on Wiamoase stool
affairs, Chieftaincy Secretariat, the Attorney-General and Nana Pim Owusu Ansah
in respect of whose destoolment these protracted proceedings originated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of this case can be found in the numerous affidavits and statements filed in
support of this application. In May 1968, Obaapanin Adjoa Amponsah lodged a
complaint against Okyiame Panin of Wiamoase at the Agona (Ashanti) Traditional
Council. The council met to hear and determine the subject-matter of the
complaint in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Chieftaincy
Act, 1961 (Act 81). On 22 July 1968, Nana Pim Owusu Ansah was declared
destooled as Wiamoasehene by the council. We are not directly concerned with
the proceedings before the Agona Traditional Council and with the question
whether it was mandatory that charges should have been preferred directly
against him. However, it seems to me that the proceedings contemplated under
the Chieftaincy Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder contemplate
disciplinary proceedings against a chief and not a trial eventuating in
punishment. Moreover in traditional courts and tribunals, it is the real issue
that matters, and not technical rules relating to parties and procedure. The chief,
i.e. the third respondent, appealed in accordance with the provisions of
section 48 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81). This subsection provides
as amended by the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 243), that:<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">“48. (1)
Any party to a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy who is dissatisfied with
the decision of a Traditional Council thereon may, with the leave of the
Minister, appeal against the decision by initiating proceedings before a
Committee under section 35 of this Act within two months after the giving of
the decision, or such extended period as the Minister may allow.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants contend that the third respondent never obtained the leave of the
minister to file his appeal against the decision of the traditional council. The
senior assistant secretary of the office of the Prime Minister has sworn to an
affidavit stating that the said leave was obtained. He, however, does not tell
us the date when such leave was obtained. I do not think it is necessary for me
to go into this aspect of the matter at this stage. The respondent himself does
not state whether he obtained the leave of the minister or not.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Committee of the Chieftaincy Secretariat which heard the appeal recommended to
the National Liberation Council that in their view, “the appeal should be
allowed, because the decision of the Agonahene and the council declaring the
appellant destooled was unsupported by evidence and also made without
jurisdiction. It should accordingly be set aside as null and void. To promote cordial
relations between the appellant and the Agonahene and his elders, it is
recommended that there should be no order as to costs.”<o:</main>