REPUBLIC vs. TEKPERBIAWE DIVISIONAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE NENE KORLE II [1972]DLHC2417

REPUBLIC vs. TEKPERBIAWE DIVISIONAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE NENE KORLE I... [1972]DLHC2417

Date	1972-11-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2417

ABBAN J.

U.V. CAMPBELL (ATE PUPLAMPU WITH HIM) FOR THE APPLICANT.

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1972]DLHC2417
																																						<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>&nbsp;TEKPERBIAWE DIVISIONAL COUNCIL AND
ANOTHER; EX PARTE NENE KORLE 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;[1972]
1 GLR 199<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
1 NOVEMBER 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">

U.V. CAMPBELL (ATE PUPLAMPU WITH HIM) FOR THE
APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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
application before the court is for the writ of certiorari directing the
respondents, Tekperbiawe Divisional Council and the Ada Traditional Council to
bring up to this court certain proceedings dated 20 April 1971 for the same to
be quashed. The applicant further prays for an order prohibiting the two
respondents from suspending him or declaring him destooled from his office as a
divisional chief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
events which led to this application are set out in the affidavits filed. The
contents of these affidavits show that the applicant had been the recognised
divisional chief of Tekperbiawe division of Big Ada, and in November 1970, some
members or sections of the said divisional stool led by one Korle Gbettor
intending to destool the applicant preferred destoolment charges against him.
The charges were lodged with certain elders of the Tekperbiawe divisional
stool, and this procedure, on the face of it, purported to comply with the
Chieftaincy (Destoolment Proceedings) Regulations, 1963 (L.I. 309),<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
following are some of the provisions of L.I. 309:<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">“1. (1)
Every Traditional Council shall for its area make and forward to the Minister a
list of the names and any customary posts or titles of all persons who are
entitled by custom to give final approval to the destoolment of a Chief.<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">&nbsp;(2) For the purpose of these Regulations, the
expression ‘elder’ means a person whose name appears on the list forwarded to
the Minister under the preceding sub-regulations. 2. A claim or complaint
against a Chief may be lodged with an elder of the Stool concerned who shall,
within fourteen days of the lodging, summon all the other elders concerned to
hear the claim or complaint. <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">3. At any
meeting of the elders concerned,<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) the
elder summoning the meeting shall be the chairman; (b) the quorum shall be half
the number of the elders concerned; (c) decisions shall be by a simple majority
of elders present; and (d) the chairman shall have an additional or casting
vote in the event of an equality of votes.<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">&nbsp;4. (1) The meeting may dismiss the claim or
complaint summarily but where the meeting decides that a prima facie case has
been made out against the Chief it shall forward a copy of the claim or
complaint together with the decision thereon to the Traditional Council and the
elders shall have the right, to the exclusion of any other person, to appear
before the Traditional Council in the exercise of its jurisdiction under
section 15 of the [Chieftaincy] Act [Act 81].”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is to
be noted that section 15 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), has now been
repealed but the same provision has been made in section 15 of the Chieftaincy
</main>