REPUBLIC vs. AWUKU AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ADIAKU AND ANOTHER [1999]DLCA453

Date	1999-04-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA453

SAPONG JSC

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE JA

BENIN JA

MENSA ETSI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NUTSUGAH FOR J DOTSE (WITH HIM MS ALHASAN) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1999]DLCA453
																																						<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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AWUKU AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ADIAKU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 645<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="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 22 APRIL 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MENSA ETSI FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

NUTSUGAH FOR J DOTSE (WITH HIM
MS ALHASAN) FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

SAPONG JSC, ESSILFIE-BONDZIE
AND BENIN JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF SAPONG JSC.<o:p></o:p>In this appeal everything is centered on the order of 14 July
1997. What was the order made by the High Court, Ho on that day? It is this:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“. . . the application for an order of certorari to quash the judgment
of the judicial committee of the Akpini Traditional Council dated 26 May 1995
is granted. It is hereby ordered that the said judgment be brought up to be
quashed and it is hereby quashed.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>An order of a court has to be clear and unambiguous. There is
nothing in the record of proceedings to even suggest remotely that an
application was made to the High Court, Ho for an interpretation of the said
order. Once a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is quashed, it means
the slate is clean. Any act therefore purported to be done thereafter cannot be
said to amount to contempt of court. The appellants cannot be said to have
disobeyed the High Court, Ho. In the premise the appellants cannot be held for
contempt of court and therefore the appeal succeeds. It is accordingly allowed.<o:p></o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ESSILFIE-BONDZIE JA.<o:p></o:p>I agree.<o:p></o:p>JUDGMENT OF
BENIN JA.<o:p></o:p>The High Court, Ho quashed the decision of the judicial committee
of the Akpini Traditional Council (ATC) whereby it had granted recognition to
the second appellant herein as the Fiaga of Logba Traditional Area (LTA). This
followed an application for certiorari in which it was alleged that a
non-member of the Akpini Traditional Council had deliberated in the proceedings
leading to the appointment of its judicial committee. This was upheld by the
High Court which accordingly quashed the decision of the judicial committee. It
must be pointed out that the decision of the judicial committee was based on a
writ that was issued before the Akpini Traditional Council.<o:p></o:p>With the quashing of the decision of the judicial committee, one
would have thought that the High Court’s duty had ended and that thenceforth it
was the Akpini Traditional Council which was enjoined by law to constitute a
fresh judicial Committee to rehear the action which was pending before it
following the High Court’s decision. In other words the High Court’s decision
left the writ and all pleadings, if any, intact. Thus the Akpini Traditional
Council was left free to deal with the matter the way the law and practice
permitted it. The High Court’s decision did not, and could not, fetter the
hands of the Akpini Traditional Council. At this stage, I deem it fit to refer
to the relevant portions of the High Court’s decision; it provides:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“. . . the application for an order of certiorari to quash the
judgment of the judicial committee of the Akpini Traditional Council dated 26
May 1995 is granted. It is hereby ordered that the said judgment be brought up
to be quashed and it is hereby quashed.”<o:p></o:p>Costs were also awarded. Thus the only order made were: (1) the
quashing of the judgment and costs.<o:p></o:p>We need not remind ourselves that the High Court has no
jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters except in the exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction which it rightly exercised in the application before it. Hence
after its decision if the Akpini Traditional Council decided to take fresh
steps towards the installation or recognition of any person as the Fiaga of the
Logba Traditional Area, the High Court would have no right to stop it in any
way and under whatever guise. The High Cour</main>