REPUBLIC vs. FREMPONG II & ANOTHER; EX PARTE ABABIO II [1973]DLHC2260

Date	1973-12-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2260

ABBAN J.

DR. S. TWUM (JOE REINDORF AND FRIMPONG-BUADU WITH HIM) FOR THE APPLICANT.

S.K. AMOFA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLHC2260
																																						<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>FREMPONG II &amp; ANOTHER; EX PARTE ABABIO 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;[1973]
1 GLR 208<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:
15 DECEMBER 1972.<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">

DR. S. TWUM (JOE REINDORF AND FRIMPONG-BUADU WITH
HIM) FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

S.K. AMOFA 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 is for an order for certiorari to quash the decision of Nana
Frempong Mposo II of Effiduase and the elders of Nifa Divisional Council, purporting
to destool the applicant as the Krontihene of Effiduase. The decision
complained of is contained in the proceedings of the meeting of the said Nifa
Divisional Council held at Effiduase on 20 August 1972.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case are that until August 1972, the applicant was the recognised
Krontihene of Effiduase. On 20 August 1972 Nana Frempong Mposo II, the
Effiduasehene (hereinafter referred to as the first respondent) and his elders,
constituting themselves as the Nifa Divisional Council, met at the ahenfie to
consider certain matters and to take decisions affecting the said division. In
the course of their deliberations, an affidavit which was alleged to have been
deposed to by the applicant some time ago in connection with a certain arbitration,
was read. The said affidavit was not exhibited in the present application. But
from the proceedings at the meeting, it appears some parts of that affidavit
made references to the conduct of the first respondent at the said arbitration.
The first respondent, who was then presiding over the said divisional council
meeting, became offended by the contents of this affidavit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
some of the elders present at the meeting suggested that the affidavit in
question should be ignored. Others insisted that matters raised in the
affidavit should be gone into. Having eventually decided to discuss the
contents of that affidavit, messengers were sent to summon the applicant to
appear before the meeting. The messengers later came back to inform the meeting
that they saw the applicant and the applicant said he was on his way to
hospital for medical treatment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>One of
the elders, to be precise, Opanin Gyateng, felt that it was not right to
discuss matters affecting the applicant in the applicant’s absence. He therefore
urged upon the meeting to adjourn the discussion for a week to enable the
applicant to be present. This wise suggestion was rejected. The meeting then
went into recess and resumed at about 4.25 p.m., when discussion about the
applicant’s said affidavit was re-opened by the elders. The first respondent,
at this juncture, swore what has been described in the proceedings as “the oath
of innocence,” and then contended that he was innocent of all that had been
said about him in the applicant’s said affidavit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
examination of the proceedings of that day, it is found that after the first
respondent had sworn the said “oath of innocence,” at least nine of the elders
again felt the injustice of continuing with the discussion of the affidavit
when the applicant was not present, and they requested the postponement of the
discussion. Again, the first respondent and a few of the elders refused to
countenance that suggestion. Then, out of the blue, the first respondent got up
and made all sorts of allegations, unconnected with what was being discussed,
against the applicant. Thereupon, the meeting declared the applicant destooled
as Krontihene of Effiduase.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
application, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the whole process
adopted by t</main>