REPUBLIC vs. AKROKERE SUB-TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTECARR AND OTHERS [1980]DLHC1101

Date	1980-01-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1101

ROGER KORSAH J.

K. ASUMADU-SAKYI FOR THE APPLICANTS.

[1980]DLHC1101
																																						<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>AKROKERE SUB-TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTECARR AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 925<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:
30 JANUARY 1980<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">

K. ASUMADU-SAKYI FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>By their
motion, the applicants seek an order of certiorari to quash the order, award
and costs granted against them by an institution designated as the
“Sub-Traditional Court, Akrokere.” The application takes its origins from a
writ of summons which one Abena Suhyen caused to issue from the District Court
Grade II, Obuasi. A statement of claim attached to that writ was exhibited with
the motion. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff (the respondent in the
instant application) complained that she had instituted an action against the
applicants at what she styled the<o:p></o:p>“Akrokere
Sub-Traditional Court” in respect of a land matter; that the sub-traditional
court found the applicants guilty and gave judgment in her (the plaintiff’s)
favour; that when she presented her bill of costs (in respect of the
proceedings before the sub-traditional court totalling ¢312) to the applicants
they (the applicants) failed or refused to pay it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
ground upon which the applicants base their grievance is that the Akrokere
Sub-Traditional Council had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in a land matter in
spite of their protestations. By section 12 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971
(Act 370), every traditional area was provided with a traditional council.
Under section 15 (1) of the said Act each traditional council was given
exclusive jurisdiction “to hear and determine any cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy which arises within its area.” This jurisdiction conferred on
traditional councils is, by section 28 (2) of the Act, to be exercised by a
judicial committee of the traditional council comprising three or five persons
appointed by the council. These judicial committees of traditional councils,
being inferior courts created by statute, are restricted in their judicial
functions by the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on them. They
cannot arrogate to themselves jurisdiction over matters upon which the parent
statute is silent. Since the jurisdiction conferred on these councils is
limited to “cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.” It is the import of this
phrase that we must primarily concern ourselves with.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
113 (1) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), informs us that “cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy” means:<o:p></o:p>“. . .
any cause, matter, question or dispute relating to any of the following: <o:p></o:p>(a) the
nomination, election, appointment or installation of any person as a Chief or
the claim of any person to be nominated, elected, appointed or installed as a
Chief; <o:p></o:p>(b) the
destoolment or abdication of any Chief; <o:p></o:p>(c) the
right of any person to take part in the nomination, election, appointment or
installation of any person as a Chief or in the destoolment of any Chief;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(d) the recovery or delivery of stool property
in connection with any such nomination, election, appointment, installation, destoolment
or abdication; <o:p></o:p>(e) the
constitutional relations under customary law between Chiefs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>