REPUBLIC vs. ASANKARE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE AFRAKOMA [1988]DLHC662

Date	1988-08-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC662

LARTEY J.

OBENG MANU FOR THE APPLICANT.

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1988]DLHC662
																																						<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>ASANKARE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE AFRAKOMA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 592<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:
26
AUGUST 1988<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">

OBENG MANU FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LARTEY J.<o:p></o:p>In this application,
the applicant, Nana Yaa Afrakoma, queenmother of Asankare, prays for an order
of certiorari directed to the Omanhene and President of the Asankare
Traditional Council that the oral decision declaring the applicant destooled as
queenmother of Asankare on or about 24 March 1988 be quashed. The application
was strongly resisted by the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
first place it is important to briefly outline the circumstances and events
that led to the present application as alleged in the applicant’s affidavit.
The applicant was enstooled queenmother of Asankare on 17 March 1977 and had
since acted in that capacity. At about 8.30 in the morning of 24 March 1988
five persons including a police officer came to her house with a message that
they had been sent, by the Omanhene of Asankare, Nana Okofrobuo Kwakye Depoah
II, that the applicant had been destooled as the queenmother and therefore the
stool regalia in her possession should be handed over to the group. She was
also requested to vacate the house she was occupying. After declaring that she
was unaware of the destoolment, the applicant protested against the purported
destoolment as being uncustomary and wrong. She refused either to hand over the
stool properties or to vacate the house, whereupon the policeman, one Detective
Corporal Robert Obuor Adjei, attempted to use his position to compel her to
hand over the properties but she stood her ground. The applicant now asserts
her right to remain on the stool by bringing this application asking the court
to annul the said destoolment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents also filed a nineteen-paragraph affidavit in opposition which was
deposed to by the president of the Asankare Traditional Council. The Omanhene
referred to certain developments which had occurred prior to the incident of 24
March 1988 as alleged in the applicant’s affidavit. By paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the affidavit in opposition, the Omanhene averred that on his return from Accra
he was told of the arrest of his own daughter, one Akua Afriyea, and the
applicant for being in unlawful possession of gold ornaments and Asankare stool
properties which they alleged they were sending to him in Accra. That had
prompted the Asankare stool royals to take the customary step to depose the
applicant and the krontihene also to slaughter a sheep to that effect.<o:p></o:p>The
substance of paragraphs 7-13 of the affidavit in opposition is that he swore
before the Asankare stool royals and some elders that the conduct of the
applicant was without his consent and knowledge. He also proclaimed that he
alone among the royals had the customary right to destool the applicant.
Subsequently, a meeting was called by the oyokohene of Asankare, Nana Kwasi
Ofori, at the Omanhene’s palace. The said meeting was attended by the Omanhene
himself, the applicant, Asankare stool royals, some elders and citizens of
Asankare. At that meeting held on 6 September 1987 the applicant had alleged
that she had been invited by the Omanhene to a juju man who would kill the
royals of Asankare. He claimed he responded to the said allegation by swearing
the great oath of Asante that it was false. The climax of these events is contained
in paragraph 14 which I prefer to reproduce verbatim; it reads:<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">“14 The
panel (sic) of arbitrators found the said allegation to be false and since in
accordance with custom I was the one and only kingmaker of the applicant, the
panel inquired from me whether or not I intend to rule with the applicant as my
kingmaker. I replied in the negative and on that same day 6 September 1983
(sic) requested my linguist to slaughter a sheep and I declared the applicant
destooled in her presence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Three
grounds were relied upon by the applicant; and these are: (i) that the Asankare
Traditional Council acted in breach of the rules of natural justice, in
particular the audi alteram partem rule when it declared the applicant
destooled without trial and without giving the applicant the opportunity of
being heard or both; (ii) that the said council in declaring the applicant
destooled acted in excess of its jurisdiction; and (iii) that the purported
destoolment was in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Chieftaincy Act,
1971 (Act 370), and therefore null and void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>