REPUBLIC vs. TECHIMAN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE TUTU [1982]DLCA2190

Date	1982-05-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLCA2190

FRANCOIS JA

EDWARD WIREDU JA

COUSSEY J.A.

TORTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1982]DLCA2190
																																						<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>TECHIMAN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE TUTU <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 996<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:
11 MAY 1982<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">

TORTOE FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

FRANCOIS, EDWARD WIREDU AND COUSSEY JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF COUSSEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Sunyani. The main ground argued by
the appellant was that “on the affidavits filed by the parties it is clear that
Tanoso is not within the Techiman Traditional Council and the High Court erred
in holding the contrary.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
law that where there is no jurisdiction proceedings are void: see Sarn v.
Buadom (1922) F.C. ‘22, 24. The facts in this matter are simple. The
respondents brought an action against the appellant who is the queenmother of
Tanoso before the Techiman Traditional Council. The competency of the forum to
try her was raised, but it was overruled and the said Techiman Traditional
Council went into the matter and gave judgment to the effect that the appellant
was guilty of all the charges preferred against her, and ordered that she
should surrender her stool and the stool paraphernalia to her kingmakers.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant moved the High Court, Sunyani, for an order of certiorari to quash
the proceedings including the judgment and order in the case. The evidence
before the High Court was mainly by affidavits supported by certain documents
annexed to them. The appellant in a further affidavit filed in the High Court
on 25 April 1979 and marked C deposed, inter alia, as follows:<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. (a)
That Tanoso became part of what is now Kumasi Traditional Area after the
conquest of Techiman by Asantehene Opoku Ware I. The latter took Tanoso from
Techiman after that war. (b) That Tanoso continued to be part of the then
Kumasi State Council until 1836 when the then Ashanti Confederation was broken
up. (c) That for a brief period from 1896-1934 Tanoso was given back to
Techiman by the British. (d) That when the Ashanti Confederacy was restored in
1935 Tanoso again was restored to<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">Kumasi
and became part of the then Kumasi State Council.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
affidavit was in answer to an affidavit filed also on 25 April 1979 by Nana
Kwabena Owusu, the Krontihene of Tanoso, who deposed with the consent and
authority of the other respondents. The said affidavit is marked B. In the
affidavit he deposed in paragraph 2, “that Tanoso is within the Techiman
Traditional Council and that the judicial committee of the said council is
competent to hear the petition.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
matter, therefore, in contention is whether or not Tanoso is within the
Techiman Traditional Council. On this, both the appellant and the respondents
tendered exhibits D, Z and X before the High Court in support of their case.
Exhibit D relates to the destoolment and enstoolment of a Tanosohene in 1958.
It is evident on the face of exhibit D that Tanoso was part of the Kumasi State
Council. Exhibit Z, the Local Government Bulletin, which was tendered by the
respondents did place Tanoso under the Techiman Traditional Council in 1977;
but this Local Government Bulletin was cancelled by exhibit X published in 1979
which placed Tanoso under the Kumasi Traditional Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Chieftaincy,
since the British colonial administration has been governed by statute and this
has continued since the independence of Ghana in 1957. In 1958, the legislation
which governed chieftaincy was the House of Chiefs Act, 1958 (No. 20 of 1958).
Section 4 (3) of that Act had the Asa</main>