AMOASI III vs. TWINTOH [1988]DLSC702

Date	1988-06-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC702

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

ABBAN JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C

[1988]DLSC702
																																						<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" >AMOASI III <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TWINTOH <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 554<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
21 JUNE 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">

KWAME BOAFO FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR 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">

ADADE, TAYLOR, FRANCOIS, ABBAN AND
AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Amua-Sekyi
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 16 May 1988 we allowed this
appeal, set aside the judgment of the National House of Chiefs and restored
that of the Central Regional House of Chiefs dismissing the action of the
plaintiff. We now proceed to give our reasons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
action originated in proceedings before a judicial committee of the Eguafo
Traditional Council to assert the claim of the plaintiff to be the head of the
Aboradze stool family of Egyeikrom. The defendant is the occupant of the stool.
In the tribunal of first instance, the plaintiff succeeded and obtained an
order calling on the family to appoint him as its head. This decision was,
however, set aside by the judicial committee of the Central Regional House of
Chiefs to which an appeal had been lodged. When the plaintiff appealed to the
National House of Chiefs, the decision of the judicial committee of the Central
Regional House of Chiefs was set aside and that of the Eguafo Traditional
Council restored.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On a
further appeal to this court, the defendant raised for the first time the
question of jurisdiction saying that the matter which was brought before the
judicial committee of the traditional council was not a cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy and that the committee lacked jurisdiction to entertain
it and, consequently, its decision and that of the judicial committee of the
National House of Chiefs were null and void. He relied on the decision of this
court in Osei v. Siribuor II [1984-86] 1 G.L.R. 588, S.C.<o:p></o:p>The answer
of the plaintiff was, first, to say that the question had not been raised in
the lower tribunals and, secondly, to assert that the claim was properly
cognisable under section 66 (c) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). As to
the first, such an objection was raised at the close of the case for the
plaintiff in Hausa v. Dawuda [1961] G.L.R 550, and a like objection was taken
for the first time on appeal in Atoo v. Sekondi-Takoradi Town Clerk [1961]
G.L.R. 413, S.C. The reason is simply that when a tribunal adjudicates on a
matter over which it has no jurisdiction its decision is a nullity and a party
affected thereby is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside: see
Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 764. See also the judgment of this court in
Kumnipah II v. Ayirebi [1987-88] 1 G.L.R. 265, S.C. The defendant was therefore
perfectly entitled to raise the question of jurisdiction for the first time in
this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
66 of Act 370 on which the plaintiff relies as conferring jurisdiction on the
Eguafo Traditional Council to adjudicate on the complaint brought by him does
no such thing. It merely defined the words “cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy” appearing in section 15 (1) and other sections of the Act. 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">“66. In
this Act—<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">... ‘cause
or matter affecting chieftaincy’ means any cause, matter, question or dispute
relating to any of the following— (a) the nomination election, appointment or
installation of any person as a Chief or the claim of any person to be
nominated, elected, appointed or installed as a Chief; (b) the destoolment or
abdication of any Chief; (c) the right of any person to take part in the
nomination, election, appointment or installation of any person as a Chief or
in the destoolment of any Chief; (d) the recovery or delivery of stool property
in connection with any such nomination, election, appointment, installation
destoolment or abdication; (e) the constitutional relations under customary law
between Chiefs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
submission, then, was that the suit brought by the plaintiff to determine
whether or n</main>