KONADU AND ANOTHER vs. GYAN II AND OTHERS [1988]DLSC775

Date	1988-06-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC775

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

ABBAN JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.

KODUAH FOR THE APPELLANTS

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[1988]DLSC775
																																						<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" >KONADU AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GYAN II AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 571<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">

KODUAH FOR THE APPELLANTS <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 TAYLOR J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Taylor
J.S.C. delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Adade J.S.C. The two
appellants in this case sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the
judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs in a petition in which they claimed
certain declarations and an interim order of injunction against the
respondents. The first appellant is the queenmother of Tafo and the second
appellant is her nominee for the vacant stool of Tafo. The respondents are the
kingmakers of Tafo.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of the case are very simple. The first appellant nominated the second appellant
for consideration by the respondents for election as Tafohene, but the
respondents rejected him as a candidate for the stool and they declined to give
any reasons for rejecting the second appellant. They maintained that under
customary law they were not obliged to give reasons for rejecting the
queenmother’s candidate where their rejection was unanimous. As the queenmother
refused to present another candidate and insisted on foisting her candidate on
them, the kingmakers sought a clarification of the customary law position from
the Kumasi Traditional Council presided over by the Asantehene to whom they and
the occupant of the Tafo stool owe customary allegiance. The parties were
summoned to appear before the Kumasi Traditional Council presided over by the
Asantehene on 13 August 1988 and after each party had stated its case, the
unanimous view of the Kumasi Traditional Council was that the respondents’ view
of the customary law was right and the first appellant was given one week to
nominate a candidate other than the second appellant, failing which the
respondents would be entitled to nominate and enstool their own candidate. I
think this is a domestic settlement of their traditional affairs and although
the order of the council may not bind the appellants as a court order would
have done, I see nothing wrong with the approach of the Kumasi Traditional
Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Aggrieved
by the decision of the Kumasi Traditional Council however, and fearing, no
doubt that the kingmakers would abide by the council’s decision, the appellants
ignored the Judicial committee of the Kumasi Traditional Council and petitioned
rather to the Judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs claiming:<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">&nbsp;“(a) A declaration that having regard to the
fact that the first petitioner herein, has validly, lawfully and customarily
nominated the second petitioner herein, and has duly presented him (ie the
second petitioner) to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth
respondents herein, for his (the second petitioner’s) enstoolment or
installation as the Tafohene, and by reason of the fact that all the said
respondents could not raise any valid or legal, or customary or cogent ground
in support of their (the respondents’) only bare and unsubstantiated objection
to the said nomination of the second petitioner by the first petitioner, then
the respondents are in law bound to accept the second petitioner herein and
install or enstool him as the Tafohene. (b) A declaration that in the
circumstances of this case, the respondents are not entitled to require the
first petitioner herein to nominate any other person, apart from the second
petitioner herein, for enstoolment as the Tafohene. (c) A declaration that the respondents
herein, either individually or collectively are, in the circumstances of this
case, not entitled to nominate any other person apart from the second
petitioner herein for enstoolment or installation as the Tafohene or to be
presented to the Asantehene or the Kumasi Traditional Council or both to swear
the oath of office or allegiance to them. (d) An order of interim injunction
restraining the respondents herein from nominating or presenting any other
person for presentation to the Asantehene or the Kumasi Traditional Council for
the purpose of swearing the oath of office or allegiance to the Asantehene or
the Kumasi Traditional Council or both, or from doing anything or act towards
the nomination, enstoolment or installation or both of any other person as the
Tafohene pending the final hearing and determination of this petition. (e) Any
other orders as are reasonably necessary for doing justice in this matter in
terms of Order 63, r. 6 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.
140A), or as permissible under the law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Under
sections 15 and 28 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370) the judicial
committee of a traditional council has generally exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and determine any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy within its area
provided it is one to which the Asantehene or a paramount chief is not a party;
and the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs has generally
appellate jurisdiction in matters relating to chieftaincy </main>