REPUBLIC vs. WESTERN NZIMA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE NANA KPANI ACKAH III [1973]DLHC2274

Date	1973-04-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2274

EDUSEI J.

J. K. ESSIEM FOR THE APPLICANT.

R. S. BLAY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2274
																																						<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;WESTERN NZIMA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL;
EX PARTE NANA KPANI ACKAH III<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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]
2 GLR 107<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:
11 APRIL 1973.<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">

J. K. ESSIEM FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. S. BLAY FOR THE 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant herein, Nana Kpani Ackah III of Nuba, was sued before the Western
Nzima Traditional Council and the said council after hearing evidence declared
him destooled after the Oman of Nuba had agreed to “pay him off” with ¢200.00
which he accepted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By his
application Nana Kpani Ackah III is seeking an order of certiorari to quash the
decision of the Western Nzima Traditional Council on the ground of its lack of
jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Mr. Essiem, counsel for the
applicant, has contended that the only competent tribunal that could have
inquired into the destoolment charges against the chief was the judicial
committee of the Western Nzima Traditional Council and not the whole body of
the council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
necessary to refer at this stage to the relevant law on the jurisdiction of the
traditional council. First, section 15 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act
370), reads:<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">“15. (1)
Subject to the provisions of this Act and to any appeal therefrom, a
Traditional Council shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any
cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which arises within its area, not being
one to which the Asantehene or a Paramount Chief is a party. <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">(2) The
jurisdiction conferred by this section shall be exercised in accordance with
Part V of this Act.”<o:p></o:p>Secondly,
section 28 (1) and (2) which forms part of Part V of the Act states: [His
lordship here stated the provisions as set out in the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p>I do not
think that there are any difficulties to be encountered in the interpretation
of these sections of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370), which I have quoted.
Though the jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters affecting a non-paramount chief
or the Asantehene shall be with the Traditional Council of the area it is
provided by section 28 (2) of the said Act that the said jurisdiction “shall be
exercised by a judicial committee of the Traditional Council comprising three
or five persons appointed by that Council.” The mandatory character of the
section leaves no one in doubt that a chieftaincy cause or matter can be heard
and determined by three or five persons of the traditional council who
constitute the judicial committee of the council. I do not think that the whole
body of the council members numbering more than five can lawfully sit on a
chieftaincy matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the proceedings began on 30 October 1972 with 35 members of the Western
Nzima Traditional Council sitting in judgment over the applicant, and on the
adjourned date the number of the members who heard evidence had been reduced to
29. In any case it is quite clear from the record that all or almost all the 29
or 35 members of the traditional council heard and decided the case involving
the applicant.<o:p></o:p>