REPUBLIC vs. NEW JUABENG TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX PARTE NANA SARKODEE I [1980]DLHC1111

Date	1980-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1111

JIAGGE JA

ARCHER JA

ANNAN J.A.

S. K. AMOFAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1111
																																						<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>NEW JUABENG TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX PARTE NANA SARKODEE I<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 915<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:
28 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">

S. K. AMOFAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

JOE REINDORF 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 1.0pt 0in">

JIAGGE, ARCHER AND ANNAN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants in this case preferred destoolment charges against the respondent in
the New Juabeng Traditional Council. The respondent, while the action was
pending against him, applied to the High Court for leave to issue a writ of
prohibition against the New Juabeng Traditional Council on the ground that the
appellants were not competent to prefer destoolment charges against him. The ex
parte motion for leave was granted and notices together with all the relevant
papers were served on the parties concerned.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent later filed a supplementary affidavit which was summed-up by the
trial court in the judgment as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(1) That
he had been summoned by the New Juabeng Traditional Council to defend a charge
that he had disclosed to a newspaper that charges were to be preferred against
its ‘chairman,’ i.e. the omanhene. <o:p></o:p>(2) That
he had been declared destooled by that council, as he failed to appear before
the council. <o:p></o:p>(3) That
the order of destoolment had later been reversed by the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>(4) That
another summons in a further effort to destool him had then been issued against
him by the same council, requiring him to answer charges, [including] the
principal complaint against him in the earlier case, viz. that he was after the
destoolment of the Omanhene, the President of the Council. <o:p></o:p>(5) That
the members of the council, who would try the new case, would be some of the
councillors, who had declared him destooled. (6) That there was therefore a
likelihood of considerable bias operating against him . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
found that there was real likelihood of bias (or malice as stated in the
judgment) on the part of the councillors to disqualify them from hearing the
matter and the order for prohibition was granted.<o:p></o:p>The main
ground of appeal argued by counsel for the appellants before this court was
that:<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">“the
learned judge erred in holding that the new Juabeng Traditional Council cannot
go into the destoolment charges preferred against the respondent by the elders
of his stool from his own relatives who are entiled under customary law to
nominate, elect and destool the Kyidomhene.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
argued that the traditional council was the only body clothed with jurisdiction
to deal with chieftaincy matters, and that the question of capacity was one
within the competence of the council to decide.<o:p></o:p>