TOBAH AND ANOTHER vs. KWEKUMAH AND OTHERS [1980]DLCA1637

Date	1980-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1637

JIAGGE JA

FRANCOIS JA

EDUSEI J.A.

GWIRA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLCA1637
																																						<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" >TOBAH AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KWEKUMAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 648<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:
14 APRIL 1981<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">

GWIRA 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 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs’
claim in the High Court was for:<o:p></o:p>“(a) a
declaration that the defendants herein have no right to nominate or appoint or
confirm or instal or outdoor any candidate as the Chief of the Agona Division
without the consent of the plaintiffs who represent the majority and the lawful
kingmakers; and <o:p></o:p>(b)
interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, etc. from
confirming or outdooring any person pending the determination of this suit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants were served with the writ of summons on 22 December 1978 but they
neither entered appearance nor filed a defence. The plaintiffs on 9 March 1979
filed an ex parte action for interlocutory judgment against the defendants. The
action was granted and on 10 April 1979 final judgment was signed in the
following terms:<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">“Motion
is granted as prayed. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiffs
herein as against the defendants. It is further declared that the defendants
herein have no right to nominate or appoint or confine or instal or outdoor any
candidate as the chief of Agona Division without the consent of the plaintiffs
who represent the majority and the lawful kingmakers of the area.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 17
April 1979, the defendants filed a motion on notice to set aside the judgment
in default of appearance. The affidavit in support of the motion, inter alia,
stated:<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">“That it
is our contention that the matter now before the court is a chieftaincy cause
or matter and that this court is not the proper forum to determine it. That in
fact, this same matter is pending before the judicial committee of the Ahanta
Traditional Council, Busua, since 27 December 1978.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
appear from the defendants’ affidavit in the court below, that the plaintiffs
had filed a similar action seeking the same redress before the judicial
committee of the Ahanta Traditional Council barely five days after the writ of
summons filed in the High Court had been served on the defendants. The learned
judge of the High Court ruled that he had jurisdiction to entertain a
chieftaincy cause or matter and dismissed the motion to set aside the judgment.
This appeal by the defendants is against the ruling of the High Court and the
main ground of appeal before this court was whether or not the judge of the
High Court had jurisdiction “to hear and determine any cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We were
satisfied that the High Court had no such jurisdiction. We allowed the appeal
and set aside the judgment of the court below. We now give the reasons for our
decision. Section 15 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370), clothed a
traditional council with “. . . exlusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any
cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which arises within its area . . .” The
exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this section was regulated by the
Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations,
1972 (LI 798), reg. 2 which provides, “The jurisdiction conferred on each
Traditional council by section 15 of the Chieftaincy Act and these regulations
shall be exercised by a judicial committee.”<o:p></o</main>