REPUBLIC vs. STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS; EX PARTE MAMPONSU STOOL AND ANOTHER [2000]DLHC470

REPUBLIC vs. STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS; EX PARTE M... [2000]DLHC470

Date	2000-03-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLHC470

ASIAMAH J

W ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GWIRA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2000]DLHC470
																																						<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">STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS; EX
PARTE MAMPONSU STOOL AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 674<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: 17 MARCH
2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>W ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

GWIRA FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Asiamah J. <o:p></o:p>The applicants are seeking an interim injunction against the
second and third respondents under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court and an order for an interim preservation of royalty payments in respect
of the disputed stool lands which is the subject-matter of a suit between the
second and third respondents on one side and the applicants on the other,
pending before both the first respondent and the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>The Kayireku stool is a divisional stool under the Twifo Paramount
Stool. The first applicant is also a subservient stool under the Banso stool
which is of a paramount status. A dispute arose between two grantees of the two
paramount stools and the matter was determined by a Sekondi High Court. On an appeal,
the Court of Appeal in the suit, Sah v Darku [1987-88] 1 GLR 123 at 125 said,
as stated in the headnote, holding (5):<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">“(5) The determination of the issue whether the Mamponsu Stool
owned the land in dispute whereby they could make a valid grant to the
plaintiffs or that the Kaireku Stool owned it to place their tenant farmers in
possession necessarily involved the settling of the boundaries between the two
stools. That was more so because both stools from the evidence, had exercised
certain acts of ownership over the land. As soon as the situation of the
boundary obtruded from both the pleadings and the evidence as incidental to the
determination of the real issue, it became the duty of the trial judge as
provided by section. 4(2) of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1973
(NRCD 172) to order a stay of proceedings until the boundary was finally
determined. The case would consequently be remitted to the trial court for the
settlement of the boundary between the two stools to be referred to the Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner for determination and for the trial
court to pronounce judgment on the basis of that determination.”<o:p></o:p>Upon the basis of this order of the Court of Appeal, the matter
came back to the “trial court” which referred it to the first respondent to
settle the boundaries between the respondent and applicant stools and
thereafter to remit it to the trial High Court. The settlement issue has gone
back to the Court of Appeal and the matter is still pending. It is during the
pendency of the settlement issue that the applicants have brought this
interlocutory application before the High Court.<o:p></o:p>In the course of his argument in the present application, counsel
for the respondents raised, inter alia, a jurisdictional issue and I would in
the first instance deal with this aspect of his objection to the competency of
the High Court to entertain an application of this nature. The legal point of
objection here is that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
exercisable over inferior courts does not extend to cover the grant of
injunctions. The respondents’ counsel expressed his objection in the following
words:<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">&nbsp;“But we are saying that the
High Court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in granting orders for
injunction. The supervisory powers of the High Court are limited to the
prerogative writs . . . The applicants are seeking to clothe this court and the
lower court with jurisdiction which they have never had. One of the few cases
where an action is commenced at the High Court without a writ is by an
originating motion and this is limited to prerogative writs. By its powers the
first respondent is only authorised to demarcate, define and draw up disputed
boundaries between stools. It has no power to grant interim injunction in
respect of collecting royalties.”<o:p></o:p>The oversight jurisdiction of the High Court can be found in
article 141 of the Constitution, 1992 and section 16 of the Courts Act, 1993
(Act 459). Article 141 states:<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">“141. The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all
lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority; and may, in the exercise of
that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of enforcing or
securing the enforcement of its supervisory powers.”<o:p></o:p>