REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS JUDICIAL COMMITTEE; EX PARTE AABA [2001]DLSC1226

Date	2001-07-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLSC1226

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

LAMPTEY JSC

ADZOE JSC

DR W C EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANTS.

EBOW DAWSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2001]DLSC1226
																																						<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">CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS JUDICIAL COMMITTEE; EX PARTE
AABA<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 221<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DR
W C EKOW DANIELS 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">

EBOW
DAWSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

AMPIAH,
KPEGAH, ADJABENG, LAMPTEY AND ADZOE JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Adzoe JSC. <o:p></o:p>The
issues for determination in this appeal are of great interest. They are also
not very simple. They include the following which I identify as the major ones:<o:p></o:p>(1)
Is the judicial committee of the regional house of chiefs bound in law by rule
11 of the Chieftaincy (National and Regional Houses of Chiefs) Procedure Rules,
1972 (CI 27) to give the reasons for its judgment at the time that the judgment
is announced? Otherwise stated, is it wrong for the judicial committee to
announce its judgment and reserve for another date the reasons for the
judgment?<o:p></o:p>(2)
Does the law require the judicial committee to deliver judgment within a
limited period of time after the close of the hearing of the case?<o:p></o:p>(3)
If there is a time limit for the delivery of a judgment, then what is the
effect on a judgment in which reasons are not stated but reserved and not given
within the period for delivery of the judgment?<o:p></o:p>The
first issue was raised before the High Court; issue (2) came up in the Court of
Appeal and has extended to issue (3) before us. The facts will help us to
understand the problem.<o:p></o:p>On
23 September 1996 the judicial committee of the Central Regional House of
Chiefs announced its decision in a chieftaincy suit involving the appellants
herein. They were the respondents to a chieftaincy petition filed before the
judicial committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs by one Michael
Conduah. The parties hail from the Edina Traditional Area and the dispute was
over succession to the Omanhene stool of that traditional area. The decision
announced by the judicial committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs was
brief and clear. I quote it in full:<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">“After
listening to the parties, their counsel and after reading the evidence adduced,
we hold the opinion that the petitioner’s claim should be upheld. Reasons will
be given later. Costs assessed at ¢300,000 against the respondent.”<o:p></o:p>