REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE EDURO AND OTHERS [1979]DLHC1109

REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PA... [1979]DLHC1109

Date	1979-06-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1109

JIAGGE JA

SOWAH JA

EDUSEI J.A.

GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

BLAY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1979]DLHC1109
																																						<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>&nbsp;JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE WESTERN REGIONAL<o:p></o:p>HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE EDURO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 350<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:
12 JUNE 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

JIAGGE, SOWAH AND EDUSEI JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 1
November 1977, the Sekondi High Court presided over by Quashie-Sam J. quashed
by an order of certiorari the ruling of the judicial committee of the Western
Regional House of Chiefs, dated 28 October 1976, and also by means of an order
of prohibition restrained the judicial committee of the said house from hearing
the matter before it either on appeal or de novo.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
against the decision of the Sekondi High Court that this appeal was lodged. The
history of the case may briefly be stated thus: On 20 March 1969, the Western
Nzima Traditional Council gave judgment in favour of the respondents herein who
were defendants in the original suit before the traditional council. The
plaintiffs in that suit who were dissatisfied with the decision filed a notice
of appeal on 1 December 1969 and when the matter came up for hearing before the
judicial committee of the Western Regional House of Chiefs, counsel for the
respondents herein raised two preliminary objections to the appeal, namely,
that: (a) the Western Nzima Traditional Council had no power to review its own
decision and what it purported to do on 6 November 1969 was a nullity, and (b)
the appeal against the decision of 20 March 1969 was filed out of time, and
therefore it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The ruling of the judicial
committee of the Western Regional House of Chiefs dated 2 November 1973
completely ignored the objections raised and concluded thus: “in view of the
conclusion arrived at the committee finds it unnecessary to discuss the
question as to whether or not the appellants were or were not out of time.” The
committee proceeded to make an order to hear the matter de novo. However, when
the appeal came on before another panel of the judicial committee of the
Western Regional House of Chiefs, counsel for the respondents again contended
that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear the matter since the appeal was
filed out of time. The committee, like the first panel of the judicial
committee of the house refused to consider this matter of great legal
importance but simply contended itself by relying on the ruling of 2 November
1973. This second ruling is dated 28 October 1976.<o:p></o:p>The
respondents then applied to the High Court, Sekondi, to have the ruling of 28
October 1976 quashed by means of certiorari proceedings and on this they were
successful.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On appeal
before this court the main contention of counsel for the appellants centred
around the proper interpretation of section 48 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961
(Act 81). This section 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"><o:p>&nbsp;</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
Judicial Commissioner 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
argument of Mr. Gaisie, counsel for the appellants, was that the appellant
should appeal within two months after grant of leave by the minister and,
according to him, leave was so granted on 28 April 1970. With this
interpretation of counsel I disagree. The only reasonable interpretation of
section 48 (1) of Act 81, in my view, is that leave to appeal is to be applied
for “within two </main>