<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation" hidden>[1992]DLSC4235</p> <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" ><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">FOSUHENE<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">AKORE II AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[1993 - 4] 1 GBR 165 – 178 DATE: 2 JUNE 1992<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">W A N ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">WUAKU JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, OSEI-HWERE JSC, BAMFORD-ADDO JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">AMUA-SEKYI JSC. The facts of the case are straightforward. The appellant, who claims to be Adansihene in Ashanti, lodged a petition with the Regional House of Chiefs. When a judicial committee was appointed to go into the matter, he objected to two members of the panel on the ground that the Asanteman Council, a non-statutory body with no jurisdiction in causes or matters affecting chieftaincy, of which all members of the Regional House are members had, at a meeting, declared the appellant’s alleged enstoolment as Adansihene to be improper. When the two withdrew and the committee was re-constituted he raised the same objection. This time, he was overruled. He lodged an appeal with the National House of Chiefs and, as it appears, simultaneously applied to the High Court, Kumasi, for an order of prohibition. He failed in both the High Court, and before the National House. This appeal is from the decision of the latter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">We have read with the utmost care the record of proceedings submitted to us as well as the written submissions of counsel for the appellant. We have found nothing to support the appellant’s contention of a real likelihood of bias. We consider the appeal as being without merit and accordingly dismiss it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">BAMFORD-ADDO JSC. I have had the privilege of reading the opinions of my brothers Amua-Sekyi JSC, and Hayfron-Benjamin, JSC, which discuss the facts and the law of this case and their conclusions. I agree that there is no merit in the appeal and would state my reasons in support of their conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The appellant filed three main grounds of appeal: (1) that the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs erred in law in holding itself bound by the ruling of Lartey J dated 31st May 1989; (2) that the said judicial tribunal erred in law in failing or refusing to take into consideration article 179(5) of the 1979 Constitution in rebuttal of the finding of Lartey J as to the forum of necessity; (3) that the judicial tribunal erred in law by failing or refusing to take into consideration the applicable rules concerning the disqualifying interest of its own presiding member-chiefs as were enunciated in the authorities cited in the submission of appellant’s counsel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">He further sought an order of this court directing that the chieftaincy suit pending before the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs be tried and determined by the National House of Chiefs pursuant to article 179(5) of the 1979 Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The appellant presented a chieftaincy petition before the Regional House which, under article 180 of the 1979 Constitution and section 9 of Act 370, was the proper forum. When the Regional House met to hear the case the applicant raised an objection to the members of the panel hearing the case on the ground of bias. He argued that since they were members of the Asanteman Council, which had purported to nullify his enstoolment - the subject-matter of the dispute - they could not give an unbiased hearing. But the tribunal dismissed this application. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant filed an appeal to the National House of Chiefs and, while this appeal was yet pending, also applied to the Kumasi High Court for an order to prohibit the respondents from the further hearing of the Adansi chieftaincy suit, pending before the Regional House, on the same ground of bias.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The High Court heard the prohibition case and in my opinion gave a well-reasoned judgment thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">“In the circumstance there is no good ground to support a finding that 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are biased or likely to be biased by virtue of the facts alluded to.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">He went on to discuss the principle of “doctrine of necessity” as enunciated in the case of Judges v Attorney-General for Saskatchewan (1937) 53 TLR 464 and said that even if the application could be granted the Regional House was a tribunal of necessity and would have had to adjudicate upon the matter. The applicant did not appeal against this ruling of the High Court dated 31st May 1989 which he could have done, if he was aggrieved by it. Instead he appealed to the National House against the decision of the Regional House given sometime earlier on the 6th July 1988. The ground of appeal was that the said decision was wrong in law. On the hearing of the appeal at the National House, the appellant’s counsel again raised the allegation of bias against members of the appeal panel on the ground that one of their members was a member of the Asanteman Council. The National House overruled this objection saying that it was based on similar ground as the present appeal before the House and it would prejudice the merits of that appeal if the objection was upheld. Also that the decision on which they were called upon to resolve was different from the issue whether or not appellant was properly enstooled.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Having considered and given reasons for overruling the objection it cannot be said by the appellant, as contained in ground 3, that the House failed or refused to consider the submission of appellant’s counsel on this point. Consequently this ground fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In respect of ground 1, the National House of Chiefs being an inferior tribunal under section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 (Act 372) was bound by Lartey J’s ruling and the House was right in holding that it was so bound. It could not re-open the matter either by way of appeal or review or make any pronouncement on the said ruling. If aggrieved by the ruling the appellant should have appealed properly and not used the National House as an indirect forum of appeal. This ground also fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Ground 2 states that the National House should have considered article 179(5) of 1979 Constitution in rebuttal of the finding as to the forum of necessity in Lartey J’s ruling. Quite apart from the fact that the National House could not re-open or review the ruling, there is no evidence on the record that it was even raised before the High Court nor in my opinion could it have been properly raised. The reason is that the normal forum for such a dispute is the Regional House (see section 9 of Act 370) and not the National House under article 179(5)(c) of the 1979 Constitution. To invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 179 it seems to me that an applicant must bring himself under that provision by demonstr</main>
