REPUBLIC vs. AKIM ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE ANTWI AND ANOTHER [1986]DLHC973

Date	1986-09-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC973

ABAKAH J.

M. OSEI NTI FOR THE APPLICANTS.

A. ASANTE TANNOR FOR THE THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS.

[1986]DLHC973
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 756<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
22 SEPTEMBER 1986<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">

M.
OSEI NTI FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

A.
ASANTE TANNOR FOR THE THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS.<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">

ABAKAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABAKAH J.<o:p></o:p>By this
application, the applicants want an order of this court to bring up to be
quashed a decision of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council and/or the Kyebi
Executive Council given on 8 April 1986 at Kibi in the suit entitled Opanin
Kwasi Antwi and Lieutenant-Colonel (Rtd.) Isaac Osei Agyare v. Nana Kwakye
Ababio II and Baffour Atta Yaw. The application is of course being opposed by
the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
relied upon by the applicants in support of their application derive from the
affidavit filed by them. They are stated thus: The royal Asona family of
Kwabeng in the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Area is made up of three houses, namely
Kokoben; Babaduam; and Akwanwenem. It has been the custom that the queenmother
of Kwabeng is appointed from any of these three houses after the principal
members of these houses and the chief of Kwabeng have entered into
consultations. The first applicant who swore to the supporting affidavit on
behalf of himself and on behalf of the second applicant claims to be the
abusuapanin of Babaduam and the second applicant the abusuapanin of Kokoben.
The third respondent, Baffour Atta Yaw, is the abusuapanin of the third house,
Akwanwenem. In December 1985 the queenmother of Kwabeng died. This incident
sparked off the strife which gave rise to this application. Another queenmother
had to be installed. In disregard of the time-worn custom alluded to above, the
second and third respondents on 17 March 1986 in front of the palace of the
second respondent before a public gathering proclaimed one Akua Broni the new
queenmother of Kwabeng. Thereupon the applicants swore the great oath of Akim
Abuakwa in registration of their taking exception to the conduct of the
respondents and commenced proceedings in the Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council
to challenge the proclamation of Akua Broni as the new queenmother of Kwabeng.
The Akim Abuakwa Traditional Council, the first respondent, fixed the case for
8 April 1986 and notified the parties concerned accordingly. Before the hearing
date the applicants amended their statement of claim by joining Akua Broni. The
amending papers had not been served on the respondents who had not filed a
statement of defence before the fixed date.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 8
April 1986 the unexpected did happen. The matter before the first respondent
was a chieftaincy matter and one would have expected it to be determined by a
judicial committee appointed by the first respondent. Instead of the matter
coming before a judicial committee appointed by the first respondent, it came
before a body styled the Kyebi Executive Council appointed by the Okyenhene
himself for the adjudication of the matter. The case was called on the
appointed day and the Okyenhene Osagyefo Kuntunkununku II personally just
dismissed the applicants’ case in these circumstances, breaching, as he did so,
the rules of natural justice. Exhibited and marked exhibit E is the proceedings
in question, before the Kyebi Executive Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
affidavit in opposition to the application was sworn to by the second
respondent on behalf of himself and on behalf of the third respondent. No
affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of the first respondent and fourth
respondents. The opposing affidavit states that the chieftaincy matter in
question is before the judicial committee of the Akim Abuakwa Traditional
Council. It is also deposed therein that the applicants have no blood
relationship with the Akwanwenem family and therefore their claim to the stool
is baseless. The affidavit goes on to defend the proclamation of Akua Broni’s
appointment. The respondents’ contention with respect to the oath is that there
was a reply in the form of the swearing of an oath to the swearing of the oath
by the applicants and “that the same has been reported to the Kyebi Executive
Council and the necessary rites have been performed for investigations as
required by Akyem Abuakwa custom.” According to the affidavit, the first
respondent fixed 8 April 1986 for investigations into the swearing of the oath.
The Kyebi Executive Council whose function it is to do this investigation only
met to do this; that the matter was still pending and that at the hearing of
the application (on which is this ruling) the hearing notice evidencing the
pendency of the matter dated 17 June 1986 and asking the parties to attend the
hearing on 8 July 1986 would be tendered. The affidavit is emphatic that
exhibit E is not an adjudication which can be quashed by certiorari and that
the first and the fourth respondents have made no deci</main>