REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, KUMASI AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FOSUHENE [1990]DLSC676

Date	1990-04-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLSC676

SOWAH C.J.

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.

W.A.N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT.

ADDO ATUA FOR TOTOE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1990]DLSC676
																																						<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>HIGH COURT, KUMASI AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FOSUHENE<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 315<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:
25
APRIL 1990<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">

W.A.N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

ADDO ATUA FOR TOTOE 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">

SOWAH C.J., ADADE, FRANCOIS, WUAKU AND<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
application for certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court, Kumasi is an
off-shoot of a long ding-dong chieftaincy tussle affecting the applicant, the
Adansi stool and its elders — the respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant is no stranger to this court. His attempt to acquire recognition as a
chief of Adansi, by the fiat of this court on technical grounds, and the legal
challenges this provoked, led to his initial acquaintance with the supreme
Court. That suit was remitted to the appropriate chieftaincy tribunal for early
trial on the merits. The present application illustrates the chequered course
that suit took and the peripheral hurdles which have prevented its early
resolution. The applicant, it must also be recorded, acquired a further measure
of notice with an application for review, whose refusal on legal grounds,
helped in the formulation of tests for the exercise of our newly found review
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has
been necessary to recall these matters to address the riddle that has kept a
simple chieftaincy dispute unresolved for so long. The backdrop is also
important because it confirms what has been pressed on us before, that the
Adansi State has secured pre-eminence within the Ashanti Confederacy, and the
absence of a reigning chief in that state can only presage difficulties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now
briefly to the facts. The applicant, for a reason not fully disclosed, found
the judicial committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs, unacceptable as
a tribunal for the determination of the chieftaincy matter in which he was
involved. He sought the assistance of the High Court, by invoking its
supervisory powers to immobilise the chieftaincy tribunal of the Ashanti
Regional House of Chiefs in the exercise of its judicial functions. The ex
parte application for an order of prohibition was granted and a pursuant motion
was filed on 9 August 1988. But for some curious reason the date fixed for the
hearing of the motion was pushed far back to 2 November 1988. It is said the
intervening legal vacation made it inconvenient to deal with the application
more expeditiously. That reason appears hollow and unacceptable since the
applicant also obtained an interim stay of proceedings on 4 August 1988 during
the vacation which incapacitated the regional tribunal and the parties from
proceeding with the pressing chieftaincy matter and removed entirely.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
rational answer to the question why the application was filed in the vacation
if it was inconvenient to counsel, is that a stratagem had been devised to
clamp legal fetters on the court and the respondents from continuing the action
and throw the chieftaincy inquiry into the limbo of forgotten things.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The role
and importance of the Adansi State in the affairs of the Ashanti Kingdom has
been previously alluded to. The stalemate which prevented the enstoolment of an
Adansihene did not please the Asanteman Council which issued instructions to
the elders of Adansi, the respondents herein, forthwith to take action for the
nomination and installation of an Adansihene. That provoked an immediate
response from the applicant with his recourse to the High Court for sanctions
for contempt to be exacted on the respondents. It is to be noted here that the
Asanteman Council, the prime-mover of the offending act, was left severely
alone. Again the alleged contempt was not against a wilful disobedience of the
High Court’s orders but against the interference of the judicial au</main>