[1994]DLSC5205 Login to Read Full Case <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">ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS<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">FIMAH 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]<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"">[1994 - 95] 2 G B R 936 – 942 SC DATE: 26 JULY 1994<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><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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" 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"">ANTHONY NORVOR FOR E D KOM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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"">FRANCOIS JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, AIKINS JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC, AMPIAH JSC<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"">AMPIAH JSC. <o:p></o:p></span></b></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"">This is an appeal from the decision of the chieftaincy tribunal of the National House of Chiefs.<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 petitioners in this matter instituted chieftaincy proceedings against the respondents at the chieftaincy tribunal of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the tribunal was incompetent to entertain the action since the matter did not involve a paramount stool or an occupant of a paramount stool. The tribunal overruled the objection and insisted on hearing the matter whereupon the respondents appealed against the ruling to the chieftaincy tribunal of the National House of Chiefs. The National House of Chiefs chieftaincy tribunal upheld the appeal but ruled that it had jurisdiction to exercise original jurisdiction in the matter. It relied on section 23(2) of Chieftaincy (National and Regional Houses of Chiefs) Procedure Rules 1972 (CI 27) and also article 179(5) of the 1979 Constitution which was the relevant law at the time. The respondents have appealed against that ruling.<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 reliefs sought in the chieftaincy tribunal of the Regional House of Chiefs were:<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"">“(1) A declaration that the nomination, election and installation of Ansu-Agyei (1st respondent herein) as Krontihene of Wamfie in the Dormaa Traditional Area by the 2nd, 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th and 8th respondents is null and void and of no effect as the same is contrary to custom and usage of Dormaa traditional area.<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(ii) A declaration that the decision of the 9th respondent herein (as evidenced in letters dated 23rd and 24th August 1982) not to allow Nana Peprah of Wamfie to swear the oath of allegiance to the Dormaa Traditional Council is null and void as same is contrary to Dormaa customary law and usage.<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(iii) A declaration that the respondents herein are bound by the decision/recommendation of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs in the matter of Nana Abena Fima and Eleven others v Nana Kwesi Owusu and Six others dated 29 June 1982 and that the 1st respondent herein not being a member of the Amma Kuma royal house of Wamfie his purported nomination, election by the respondents herein is null and void and of no effect.<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(iv) An order of the judicial committee to nullify the said nomination, election and installation of Ansu-Agyei (1st respondent) as Krontihene of Wamfie in the Dormaa traditional area.<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(v) Perpetual injunction to restrain the 1st respondent herein from acting in any way as Krontihene of Wamfie or from performing functions in the Dormaa traditional area.<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(vi) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the 9<sup>th</sup> respondent from recognising the 1st respondent as chief of Wamfie or admitting him to any meeting of the 9th respondent Council.”<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"">The Dormaa Traditional Council (the 9th respondent herein) had been joined in the action for the refusal of the Omanhene of the Dormaa traditional area and the president of the 9th respondent to allow the 2nd petitioner to swear the oath of allegiance to him and to restrain the 9th respondent from recognising the 1st respondent as the chief of Wamfie and krontihene of the Dormaa traditional area. It is obvious that the 9th respondent had been joined to enable the petitioners take their action away from that council.<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"">This action was commenced in 1984. The relevant constitution is therefore the 1979 Constitution as saved. Article 180(2) of the constitution provides:<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"">“The Regional House of Chiefs shall -<o:p></o:p></span></i></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"">(a) have original jurisdiction in all matters relating to a paramount stool or the occupant of a paramount stool, including a queen-mother to a paramount a stool.”<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"">See also section 23(1) of the Chieftaincy Act 1971 (Act 370). The reliefs sought by the petitioners have no direct reference to a paramount stool or the occupant of a paramount stool or the queen-mother stool. The only reference to the paramount stool is contained in paragraph 12 of the petitioners’ statement of the facts and particulars upon which they seek to rely for the reliefs sought. It states:<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"">“(12) That the petitioners presented Nana Peprah (installed under the stool name of Nana Kojo Peprah) to Nana Agyemang Badu, Omanhene of Dormaa traditional area to swear the oath of allegiance to him but the Dormaahene for no reason objected to Nana Peprah’s candidature and prevented him from the swearing the oath of allegiance.”<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"">The Omanhene is also the president of the traditional council. Though customary activities may be carried out at the council premises using some of the staff, the swearing of the oath of allegiance is purely customary and is the responsibility of the Omanhene qua Omanhene and not as the president of the council. References were made to certain letters issued from the council but the source of those letters is the Omanhene. The substance of the petitioner’s complaint is the refusal of the Omanhene to allow the 1st petitioner to s