REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, AKIM ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX PARTE MANU AND OTHERS [1992]DLCA4285

REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, AKIM ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX PARTE MANU... [1992]DLCA4285

Date	1992-06-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4285

AMUAH

KPEGAH

LUTTERODT JJA

OFORI-ASANTE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

[1992]DLCA4285
																																						<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>JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, AKIM
ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX PARTE MANU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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">

[1993 - 4] 1 GBR 211- 217&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 3 JUNE 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

OFORI-ASANTE
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 1.0pt 0in">

</div>LUTTERODT
JA. This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court, Koforidua delivered
on 4 December 1989. On 9 January 1983 the chief of Kwae died and the following
year, to be precise on 5 September 1984, Opanyin Brobbey Aboagye, the 3rd
interested-party-respondent was installed as his successor.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants herein, being highly aggrieved by his enstoolment instituted
proceedings before the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council for a declaration that
the installation was null and void.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly,
the council appointed a three-member panel, all of whom were chiefs, to hear
and determine the complaint. That judicial committee, as constituted, heard
evidence from both sides and on 2 October 1984 delivered a judgment which went
in the appellants’ favour.<o:p></o:p>However,
some months later, i.e. on 3 June 1985, the appellants received a letter from
the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council. Attached to it was a judgment, which was
supposed to have been read on 31 May 1985 by a judicial committee of the
Council differently constituted, and in respect of the complaint they had
lodged and which complaint had been adjudicated upon by the first committee.
This time, the judgment went in favour of the appellants’ opponents, the
interested-party-respondents. Again, the dissatisfied appellants promptly
caused proceedings to be instituted before the Koforidua High Court.<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs they sought in those proceedings were the twin prerogative remedies of
certiorari and prohibition. The certiorari was to be used to quash the judgment
and orders of the second judicial committee, whereas the prohibition was aimed
at forbidding any judicial committee of the council from hearing and
determining again that matter which had already been adjudicated upon and which
had terminated in the appellants’ favour.<o:p></o:p>As
was required by the rules, the motion for these prerogative orders were
accompanied not only by a statutory statement but an affidavit, verifying the
grounds on which the reliefs were being sought. From the statement as well as
the accompanying affidavit we learn what the complaint of the appellants was.
It is this: firstly, that the respondents violated the rules of natural justice
in that they never heard the parties nor their witnesses before delivering
their judgment. Put in other words, that they condemned them without first
giving them a hearing. Secondly, they lament that in so far as a properly
constituted judicial committee had earlier on adjudicated upon the matter the
respondent could not be seised with jurisdiction to determine that same matter
since in any case there was no matter pending before the council and which was
awaiting determination.<o:p></o:p>For
our purposes, I do not think it is relevant to outline the various steps taken
by the respondents when they were served with the motion.<o:p></o:p>One
of them however, was the well-known and usual step of filing an affidavit in
opposition. In it, they set forth the reasons why the appellants were not
deserving of these judicial reliefs.<o:p></o:p>Hearing
of the substantive motion commenced on the 24 February 1986 before His Lordship
Mr Justice J A Wutoh who, although this was a trial by affidavits, decided to
take evidence. At a further hearing some three years later before His Lordship
Mr Justice Abakah, again one of the steps the appellants took was to apply for
an order permitting evidence to be taken. They did so by a motion accompanied
by an affidavit. The respondents promptly filed an affidavit in opposition in
which they raised two important matters. These are:<o:p></o:p>“1. That the trial court was, by the
application for certiorari engaging in an exercise wholly outside the
jurisdiction of the court in that the exercise amounted to the determination of
a chieftaincy cause or matter before the judicial committee.<o:p></o:p>2. Secondly, that given the fact that
the chief (whose enstoolment was being challenged) has in any case been given
recognition by the government in the Local Government Bulletin No 31, the court
had no jurisdiction to entertain any action which seeks to challenge the
validity of his status.”<o:p></o:p>It
was upon this basis that when the application for certiorari came up for
further hearing on the 15th of November 1989, the respondents’ counsel formally
moved to have the motion dismissed on the main ground that with the publication
of the Local Government Bulletin the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
application before it.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants were most unhappy with the ruling delivered by the court on 4
December 1984 and have therefore appealed to this honourable court, on two
grounds, ground 2 being the main one.<o:p></o:p>In
reality the appeal was fought on only one ground, ground 2, which I reproduce
hereunder:<o:p></o:p>“(2) That the learned trial judge
erred in law in holding that with the publication of the gazette publishing the
enstoolment of the interested party the court’s jurisdiction was ousted.”<o:p></o:p>In
arguing this ground, appellants’ counsel placed reliance upon the case of
Republic v Asokore Traditional Council, ex parte Tiwaa [1976] 2 GLR 231, 245
and urged that:<o:p></o:p>“1. The mere fact that a person has
been gazetted and so given government recognition does not put a final seal of
validity on the correctness of his nomination, election, or installation to the
extent that:<o:p></o:p></spa</main>