AKENTEN II vs. MENSAH AND OTHERS [1989]DLHC516

Date	1989-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC516

OWUSU-SEKYERE J.

A.A. MUNUFIE (WITH HIM J. K. MANU) FOR THE APPLICANT.

W.Y. OPPONG FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1989]DLHC516
																																						<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" >AKENTEN II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MENSAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90]2 GLR 239<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:
3 MARCH 1987<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">

A.A. MUNUFIE (WITH HIM J. K. MANU) FOR THE
APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

W.Y. OPPONG 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">

OWUSU-SEKYERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU SEKYERE J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
motion by the applicant herein, Nana Dwoani Akenten II of Yeji in the
Brong-Ahafo Region of Ghana, praying this honourable court for an order to
issue a writ of attachment and committal against the respondents herein—Edward
Yaw Mensah and Opanyin Kojo Siberi, both of Yeji in the Brong- Ahafo Region of
Ghana, for contempt of court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By all
standards, this motion should not have been turned into a marathon exercise but
as it came to be, it took a good part of two days to argue. Mr. A.A. Munufie
with Mr. J.K. Manu for the applicants and Mr. W.Y. Oppong for the respondents,
made brilliant and scholarly submissions with consummate skill in a bid rightly
to prevail upon me to answer the question in a manner quite naturally
favourable to their client, as the case may be. They painstakingly and
vehemently canvassed all the points raised by the pleadings in arguments which
obviously demonstrate to me the unique and, if I may say so, commendable
combination of industry, research and expertise which they brought to bear on
their tasks, and I am greatly appreciative of their efforts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The brief
facts of this case are these: It would appear that there was a chieftaincy
dispute between the applicant on one side and the first respondent on the other
side in respect of the occupancy of the Yeji stool. The matter came up for
hearing before the judicial committee of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs which on 18 September 1984 gave judgment against the first respondent
herein. He appealed against that decision to the judicial committee of the
National House of Chiefs. The applicant then brought a motion for interim
injunction before the judicial committee of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs to:<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">“restrain
the first respondent from holding himself up as the Omanhene of the Yeji
Traditional Area and to restrain also the second, third and fourth respondents
from treating the first respondent or encouraging the first respondent in any
manner whatsoever as an installed Omanhene of Yeji.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
motion was granted on its terms; and the respondents herein were accordingly
restrained. It is this injunction order that the first and second respondents
are alleged to have disobeyed and consequently are brought before this court
for contempt by the applicants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In fact,
from the pleadings, the respondents do not deny disobeying the said order of
the judicial committee of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs but gave
reasons for their disobedience. For the moment, I do not want to deal with the
merits or demerits of their reasons. I want to deal, rather, with one aspect of
the submissions made to me by counsel on both sides, i.e. the interpretation of
section 26 (7) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). As I have said, this
simple motion, the facts of which are not denied, was nevertheless turned into
a marathon exercise but the marathon race was not run because I have taken out
a legal point from the submissions of counsel the determination of which will
stake the success or failure of this application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondents in his submission raised a point which touched upon the
interpretation of section 26 (7) of Act 370. Counsel submitted that the
applicant’s application was misconceived. Explaining this, counsel stated that
there was no certification from the judicial committee of the Brong-Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs to this court that the respondents had disobeyed its
order, and referred the court to section 26 (7) of Act 370. He submitted that
by that section, there should be a certificate from the registrar of the
Jud</main>