REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT REGISTRAR, KUMASI AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE YIADOM I [1986]DLSC982

Date	1986-03-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLSC982

APALOO C.J.

SOWAH JSC

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C

FRANCOIS J.A.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPLICANT.

MILLS-ROBERTSON (FOR POBEE) FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

[1986]DLSC982
																																						<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>

{SUPREME COURT, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 606<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
24 MARCH 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">

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

MILLS-ROBERTSON
(FOR POBEE) FOR THE SECOND 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, ADADE AND TAYLOR JJ.S.C. AND FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adade
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. As we understand the case for the
applicant, there are two parts to this application, plus a possible third.<o:p></o:p>The first
part is a convoluted, indirect and concealed application for certiorari under
article 119 of the Constitution, 1979 asking this court “for an order quashing
the ruling of Quashie-Sam J. of 18 October 1979, upon an application in the
nature of quo warranto brought by the applicant herein against the second
respondent herein.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second part of the application, also purporting to be made under the same
article 119 of the Constitution, 1979, shored up by article 118 of the same
Constitution, asks the court to give directions to the High Court with respect
to the High Court’s jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. We have put
“chieftaincy matters” ‘in italics because out of this term arises the possible
third request. For if this court should accede to the second application and
proceed to give the required directions, and if the court should pronounce that
the High Court has jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters, then, following out of
counsel’s submissions, there is a third request to this court to say “how the
jurisdiction, if it exists, is to be exercised.” (See paragraph (3) of the
applicant’s affidavit dated 25 February 1983.) In argument, this was reduced to
asking the court to explain: (a) what are “chieftaincy matters”? and (b) which,
if not all, chieftaincy matters the High Court can lawfully handle?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We shall
now proceed to deal with these various pleas. First the application for
certiorari. We have described this application as indirect. The motion filed on
25 February 1983 does not ask for certiorari. In fact, that word does not
appear anywhere, either in the motion, or in the accompanying affidavit and
statement of counsel. The motion is entitled:<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">“Motion
for directions in the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, under articles 118
and 119 of the Constitution, 1979, and section 9 of the P.N.D.C.
(Establishment) Proclamation, 1982.”<o:p></o:p>And it
says:<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">“Please
take notice that this honourable court will be moved for and on behalf of the
applicant herein for directions in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction
of this court over the inferior courts to enable the enforcement of her rights
as queenmother against an unlawful usurpation of the position of chief, and for
an interpretation of the provisions of the said Constitution as retained in
force by the P.N.D.C. (Establishment) Proclamation, 1982, regarding the High
Court’s jurisdiction in so far as it touches chieftaincy matters.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So this
is the application: <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">