REPUBLIC vs. NANA AKUAMOAH BOATENG II; EX PARTE DANSOA AND ANOTHER [1983]DLSC2186

Date	1983-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLSC2186

APALOO C.J.

SOWAH JSC

ARCHER JSC

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. K. AGYEMANG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLSC2186
																																						<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>NANA AKUAMOAH BOATENG II; EX PARTE DANSOA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 913<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:
17 FEBRUARY 1983<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">

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J. K. AGYEMANG 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 0in 0in">

APALOO C.J., SOWAH, ARCHER, ADADE AND
TAYLOR JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant is the queenmother of
Obomeng and the respondent is the Omanhene of the Kwahu Traditional Area. The
Obomeng stool is a sub-stool subservient to the paramount stool. The occupant
of the Obomeng stool by name Nana Abankwa abdicated and that stool became
vacant. As queenmother, the appellant has the customary right of nominating a
new candidate for election by the kingmakers.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
exercise of that right, she nominated one Obeng Akrofi for election to the
vacant stool. Her nomination appears to have been accepted by some of the stool
elders. After customary introduction to two intermediate chiefs, the
chief-elect had to be introduced to the Nifahene — the head of the Nifa
Division to which the Obomeng stool belonged. This appears to have been done
and Nana Akrofi swore the oath of allegiance to the Nifahene. But his customary
and legal recognition would be incomplete unless he also swore an oath of
allegiance to the respondent who is the overall head of the traditional area.
It was the customary prerogative of the Nifahene to introduce the new chief to
the Omanhene for this purpose. He attempted to do this but was unsuccessful.
Apparently, a rival candidate by name Colonel Osei Wusu had already sworn the
oath to him as the Obomenghene.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To assert
the right of her chosen candidate to be sworn-in, so to speak, by the
respondent, the appellant brought a suit against him in the Eastern Regional
House of Chiefs and sought a declaration that her candidate, “Obeng Akrofi was
properly and constitutionally elected to the Obomeng stool.” Apparently, the
Nifahene, Nana Kofi Asiamah, himself had his grievance against the Omanhene.
The latter had caused the Obomeng Black stool and other property to be removed
from the stool house. Claiming that this transgressed custom, he independently
instituted a suit against him in the same forum, namely the Eastern Regional
House of Chiefs. These two suits were consolidated for hearing. It is to be
noted that notwithstanding the consolidation, these were two different suits,
differently numbered. The Nifahene’s one against the respondent was numbered
ERHC/76/P/8/5 while that of the appellant was numbered ERHC/76/P18/4.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Neither
of these two suits was determined on the merits. Had that been done, these
proceedings would not have seen the light of day — at any rate, they would not
have taken the form in which they were presented to the court below. On 15
November 1977, these two suits were struck out by the judicial committee of the
Eastern Regional House of Chiefs. These were at the instance of the regional
commissioner who said that at least one of these suits had been settled. As far
as the judicial committee’s record goes, the Nifahene’s suit against the
respondent was allegedly amicably settled by the regional commissioner. It
states expressly that the suit instituted by the appellant against the
respondent “is not settled.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
present controversy arose, because the appellant claiming that that suit had
also been settled, complained that the respondent was in breach of his
customary duty inasmuch as he refused to allow her candidate Nana Obeng Akrofi
to swear the oath of allegiance to him. This disabled the latter from taking
his rightful place in the Kwahu Traditional Council. The appellant averred that
her candidate had been damnified by this.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
accordingly sought the prerogative order of mandamus to compel the Omanhene to
perform his “customary public duty” of allowing him to be so sworn. This
proceeding was com</main>