THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF GREATER ACCRA REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, DODOWA, NII OKOPA DOKU III, NII AMARFIO AND NII TSURU KORKOR EX-PARTE: NII ADJETEY KRAKU III [1998]DLCA6628

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF GREATER ACCRA REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEF... [1998]DLCA6628

Date	1998-04-02
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12/90
Citation No.	[1998]DLCA6628

LAMPTEY J.A. (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY J.A.

FORSTER J.A.

[1998]DLCA6628
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE OF GREATER ACCRA REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, DODOWA, NII OKOPA DOKU
III, NII AMARFIO AND NII TSURU KORKOR<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: NII
ADJETEY KRAKU III<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 12/90&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 2ND APRIL, 1998.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;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">LAMPTEY J.A. (PRESIDING),
BROBBEY J.A., FORSTER J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>LAMPTEY,
J.A.; <o:p></o:p>Sometime
in 1983 Nii Okopa and two others filed a petition in chieftaincy at the Greater
Accra Regional House of Chiefs, Dodowa against Nii Amugi II described as Ga
Mantse and 3 others. The said Nii Okopa and the 2 others are neither paramount
chiefs nor divisional chiefs. Indeed apart from the Nii Amugi who is a
Paramount Chief all the other parties to the petition are neither paramount
chiefs nor divisional chiefs. In due course the Regional House of Chiefs
empanelled three members of the House to hear and determine the petition. Hearing
of the petition commenced before the panel without any objection whatsoever
from any of the parties. However, in the course of the hearing a member of the
Panel, Nii Kojo Ababio, was alleged to have made statements which in the
opinion of the lawyer for Nii Kraku III disqualified that member from further
participation in the hearing as a Panel member. Formal application was made to
the panel requesting that member to politely withdraw from further
participation in the proceedings. It does not appear that the panel member
withdrew nor that the Committee made any Ruling on the objection that was
raised. In the circumstances Nii Kraku III and his lawyers took no further part
in the proceedings. The panel continued the proceedings in their absence and gave
judgment for the petitioners. The present respondents who were respondents
before the Regional House of Chiefs applied to and obtained leave to apply for
certiorari out of time to enable that Court to quash the judgment of the
Judicial Committee. It is against this decision that Nii Okopa Doku III and 2
others had appealed to this Court. <o:p></o:p>In
view of the matters of law raised and argued as well as the submissions made by
Counsel for parties I find it convenient to deal first with the issue of
jurisdiction of the Regional House of Chiefs to hear the petition. I must say
that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the Judicial Committee of
the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs up to the time the respondent herein
and his lawyers withdrew from the hearing. Be that as it may, the Rules of
Court permit and allow the issue of jurisdiction to be raised whenever and at
any time a party felt the need to do so. Before us, counsel for appellant, Nii
Okopa Doku III, submitted that the petition was properly filed in the Greater
Accra Regional House of Chiefs and further that the Judicial Committee of that
House was competent to hear and determine it. He argued that since the Ga
Mantse was made a party to the petition, it was perfectly lawful for the Regional
House of Chiefs to assume jurisdiction in the matter. He contended that the
fact that other parties are not occupants of paramount or divisional stools did
not oust the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. <o:p></o:p>He
relied on the Supreme Court case of Nana Ntiako Sakrakyie III vs Nana Appianin
Kwaframoah III &amp; 4 others dated 25 June 1996 (unreported) Chieftaincy
Appeal No.3/95. In reply, counsel for respondent Nii Adjetey Kraku submitted
that the Regional House of Chiefs did not have jurisdiction to hear and
determine the petition. He submitted that in the peculiar circumstances,
namely, where some of the parties are not paramount nor divisional chiefs but
only one party was a paramount chief the proper and lawful forum for filing the
petition was the National House of Chiefs. He referred to and relied on the
Nana Sakrakyie II’s case (supra) and the earlier Supreme Court case of Nana
Abena Fimah and 5 others vs. Nana Ansu-Agyei &amp; 8 Ors. dated 26 July 1994
(unreported) Chieftaincy Appeal. No.7/90 in support of his submission. <o:p></o:p>In
order to fully understand and appreciate the submission and arguments of
counsel for parties, it is desirable and necessary to state briefly but
concisely, the reasons why Nii Okopa Doku III and 2 others filed the petition
in chieftaincy against the respondents before the Greater Accra Regional House
of Chiefs. The petitioners sought a declaration that Nii Adjetey Kraku III was
not a Chief of Tema; that is to say, that his nomination, election and
enstoolment as Chief of Tema was contrary to custom and tradition; and (ii)
that the Ga Mantse acted contrary to custom and tradition in permitting Nii
Kraku to swear the oath of allegiance before him. It is not disputed that the
Ga Mantse is by law and custom a Paramount Chief. All the other parties to the
petition are not paramount nor divisional chiefs. The Ga Mantse was made a
party to the petition because the petitioners alleged that he the Ga Mantse
permitted Nii Kraku to swear the oath of allegiance to him and before him in
public. <o:p></o:p>One
issue that arose for consideration by this Court is whether or not “swearing of
an oath” is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The answer to this
question is an emphatic “no”. The issue of law raised above was stated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Nana Abena Fimah and 5 others vs. Nana Ansa Agyei
and 8 others (unreported) Chieftaincy Appeal No.7/90 dated 26 July, 1994. In
the course of his judgment Ampiah, J.S.C. at page 4 stated as follows:— <o:p></o:p>“The
two tribunals found that the refusal to allow an oath of allegiance to be
</main>