IN RE MOSHIEHENE OF KUMASI; ABDULRAHMAN vs. ABUBAKARI [2000]DLSC327

Date	2000-12-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC327

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

PETER ALA ADJETEY (WITH HIM SOMUA-ASAMOAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[2000]DLSC327
																																						<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">IN RE MOSHIEHENE OF KUMASI; ABDULRAHMAN<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">ABUBAKARI<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 180<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 15 DECEMBER 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:PETER ALA
ADJETEY (WITH HIM SOMUA-ASAMOAH) FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.JAMES AHENKORAH
FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU,
BAMFORD-ADDO, AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU JSC.<o:p></o:p>I have had the privilege of reading before hand the able and
learned opinion about to be read by my brother Acquah JSC in this case—being an
application for a review of the majority decision of this court given on 13 May
1998. I concur in both his reasoning and conclusion.<o:p></o:p>Article 277 of the Constitution, 1992 defines a “chief “as
follows:<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">“277. In this Chapter unless the context otherwise requires, a
‘chief ‘ means a person, who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage,
has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or
installed as a chief or queenmother in accordance with the relevant customary
law and usage.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.) And in the celebrated case of Mosi v
Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337, SC the Supreme Court held, as stated in holding (4)
of the headnote as follows:<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">“(4) Where a judgment or an order is void either because it is
given or made without jurisdiction or because it is not warranted by any law or
rule or procedure, the party affected is entitled ex debito justitiae to have
it set aside, and the court or a judge is under a legal obligation to set it
aside, either suo motu or on the application of the party affected. No Judicial
discretion arises here. The power of the court or a judge to set aside any such
judgment or order is derived from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to set
aside its own void orders and it is irrespective of any expressed power of
review vested in the court or a judge; and the constitution of the court is for
this purpose immaterial. Further, there is no time limit in which the party
affected by a void order or judgment may apply to have it set aside. Craig v.
Kanseen [1943] 1 K.B. 256 CA.; Forfie v. Seifah [1958] A.C 59, P.C.; Amoabimaa
v. Badu (1957) W.A.L.R. 214, W.A.C.A.; Concession Enquiry No 471 (Ashanti)
[1962] 2 G.L.R. 24, S.C. and Ghassoub v Dizengoff [1962] 2 G.L.R. 133, S.C.
applied.<o:p></o:p>The principle enunciated in the Bagyina case (supra) is
essentially jurisdictional and it goes to the root of any decision thus given.<o:p></o:p>On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that there was a
misconception on the part of the majority of the court (per Abban CJ and
Charles Hayfron-Benjamin and Ampiah JJSC—Atuguba and Akuffo JJSC dissenting) as
to what the real issue the parties were contesting was. The issue was a
straightforward case of who had been validly appointed as the head of the
Moshie community in Kumasi simpliciter. It had nothing to do with
“chieftaincy”, a concept commonly described in legal parlance as “cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy” within the language of section 66 of the
Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). The headship of the Moshie community, on the available
facts, clearly reveals that; (a) it is not linked to any recognised stool or
skin within the Kumasi Traditional Area; and (b) eligibility to it is not
confined to any particular family and lineage of the Moshie community in Kumasi
as prescribed by article 277 of the Constitution, 1992. The sole qualification
is that it is open to all members of the Moshie community who live in Kumasi
and who have distinguished themselves individually in their own individual
capacities and in their various callings while staying in Kumasi. The
presentation of such a head to the Asantehene does not elevate such a head to a
recognised chief in the Kumasi Municipality or Ashanti. The decision of the
majority of this court in favour of the respondent, Alhaji Abubakari, therefore,
was given per incuriam in relation to the constitutional definition of a
“chief” under article 277 of the 1992 Constitution.<o:p></o:p>The decision of the court (reported as Republic v High Court,
Kumasi; Ex parte Abubakari (No 2) [1998-99] SCGLR 904), which had culminated in
the granting of an order of certiorari to quash the Kumasi High Court’s
decision on the basis that the matter was a “cause or matter affecting
chieftaincy”, was wrong. The majority of this court, as constituted at present,
is of the view that the quashing of the dec</main>