REPUBLIC vs. THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, EX PARTE AKYEAMFOUR II [1982]DLCA2191

Date	1982-05-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLCA2191

JIAGGE JA

FRANCOIS JA

MENSA BOISON J.A.

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR. TWUM FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1982]DLCA2191
																																						<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>THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, EX PARTE AKYEAMFOUR II <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 10<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:
23 APRIL 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">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>He By his
amended application filed on 12 August 1977, Nana Anka Akyeamfour II
(hereinafter referred to as the appellant), sought “an order of certiorari to
remove the name of the third respondent), Nana Sefa Atweneboa III (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent), from the National Register of Chiefs and the
Local Government Bulletin No. 27 dated Friday 20 June 1975 for the purpose of
quashing the same.” The application was unsuccessfully made at the High Court,
Accra. It was the refusal of the High Court to accede to the prayer of the
appellant that has provoked this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
are as follows: The appellant and the respondent are two rival claimants to the
stool of Asokore in the New Juaben Traditional Area. Both assert claims to due
election and enstoolment to the stool by the accredited kingmakers. The stool
is an important one as its occupant is automatically the Benkumhene of New
Juaben.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s case is that as far back as 17 April 1971, he had paid his
customary fees and sworn the customary oaths to the Omanhene of New Juaben
entitling him to have his name registered in the National Register of Chiefs.
His name had, in fact, been submitted to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs
at Dodowa, which had in turn forwarded it to the National House of Chiefs and
transmitted it to the Commissioner responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs as
required under the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370), s. 51. His name had been
published in the Local Government Bulletin but later cancelled. When it was
re-submitted in 1973, the respondent had instituted proceedings to stop the
publication of his name in the Local Government Bulletin. That action is still
pending. Also unconcluded are proceedings which the respondent instituted in
the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs to test their respective claims to the
stool of Asokore.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Pausing
for a moment, it would be observed that if the issue of the rightful stool
occupant is undetermined then an application which seeks to insert a name in
the register as representing the regularly elected stool occupant is as futile
as it is false. The appellant’s efforts would appear indirectly to be
compelling the court to place on a statutory document a disputed assertion. As
the basic principle is that there cannot be two chiefs occupying one stool at
one time, the appellant whose name had been cancelled earlier should have
realised that he was putting the cart before the horse. In my view, the status
of chief should be satisfactorily determined before the matter of registration
with its concomitant government recognition is pursued, otherwise the exercise
comes too close to a determination of a chieftaincy issue which the High Court
is constitutionally precluded from doing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be that
as it may, the appellant’s grouse is that the respondent’s name has been
published in the Local Government Bulletin, No. 27 of June 1975, whilst his
name remains struck out despite his prior claims to that title and despite a
solemn undertaking to the High Court that no such publication would be made
while the two aspirants had their contest undecided in court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant, therefore, charges the National House of Chiefs and the respondent,
with whom they were impliedly in collusion, with a breach of the constitutional
requirements under sections 50 and 51 of Act 370, and a further breach of a
solemn undertaking to the court, which demonstrated a lack of faith, unfairness
and a high-handedness that was not in keeping with natural justice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>