REPUBLIC vs. ASHANTI REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE KODUAH III AND OTHERS [1989]DLSC663

Date	1989-12-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC663

AMPIAH JA

LAMPTEY JA

ESSIEM J.A

KODUA FOR THE APPLICANTS.

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

[1989]DLSC663
																																						<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>ASHANTI REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE KODUAH III AND
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 436<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:
12
DECEMBER 1989<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">

KODUA FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

AMPIAH, LAMPTEY AND ESSIEM JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 17
November 1988, the appellant-applicants herein applied to the High Court,
Kumasi for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the judicial
committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs from proceeding to give
judgment in the case “Nana Osei Kodua III and Others v. Barima Asumadu-Sekyi
II, Kumawuhene.” This was after leave had been granted him earlier. The
applicants’ complaint against the judicial committee was that the committee as
constituted was unlawful and therefore had no jurisdiction to deliver an
intended judgment, and also that there was a likelihood of bias. On 29 May 1989
the High Court refused the application. The applicants filed an appeal against
the ruling. On 30 May 1989 the applicants filed a motion in the High Court for
“a stay of proceedings in the chieftaincy tribunal relating to the above-matter
pending the hearing and determination by the Court of Appeal of the appeal
filed . . .” On 15 August 1989 the court refused to stay the proceedings. The
instant application is a repetition of the application for a stay of
proceedings. The respondents oppose the application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
application, we are told, is brought under the Court of Appeal Rules, 1962
(L.I. 218), rr. 27(1) (b) and 31 as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment)
Rules, 1975 (L.I. 1002). Rule 31 of L.I. 218 provides:<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">“31. The
Court may from time to time make any order necessary for determining the real
question in controversy in the appeal . . . and may make any interim order or
grant any injunction which the Court below is authorised to make or grant. . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is quite clear that the application before
us cannot fall within the ambit of rule 31 of L.I. 218. The appeal itself has
not come to this court. Neither does the application for stay of proceedings
fall under the interim orders that the court can properly make under the rule.
What the applicant could do is to bring his application within rule 27 (1) (b)
of L.I. 1002, which states:<o:p></o:p>“27. (1)
An appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution of proceedings under the
judgment or decision appealed from except where the Court below or the Court
otherwise orders — . . (b) in the case of the Court, upon application made to
it by motion on notice . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) <o:p></o:p>In Takyi
v. Ghassoub (Ghana) Ltd. [1987-88] 2 G.L.R. 452, S.C. the court held, inter
alia, that “a stay of execution of proceedings under the judgment or decision”
can only refer to processes that are to be taken in execution of the judgment
and not matters which do not form part of the judgment. Reading the unanimous
judgment of the court, Adade J.S.C. observed at 458:<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">“It is
known that to put a judgment into effect certain proceedings are requisite. In
land cases, a writ of possession may have to be applied for, prepared and
issued. In money claims a writ of fi:fa may be prepared, notices posted and
premises to be sold, auctioneer appointed, sale advertised, etc, etc. All these
will be proceedings under the judgment, i.e. proceedings which have fallen to
be taken as a result of the judgment. What the new rule 27 of L.I. 218 is
saying therefore is no more than this, that none of these proceedings should
stop simply because an appeal has been filed. The execution, i.e. the carrying
out of these proceedings, must go </main>