THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF EASTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS. (APPELLANTS) EX-PARTE: NANA YEBOAH AFARI OBUAGYAN & ORS DAASEBERE AKUAMOAH BOATENG II OMANHENE OF KWAHU TRADITIONAL AREA. [2004]DLCA6627

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF EASTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS. (AP... [2004]DLCA6627

Date	2004-06-04
Suit No.	H1/32/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6627

LARTEY J.A. [PRESIDING]

AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS.] J.A.

DOTSE J.A.

[2004]DLCA6627
																																						<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 EASTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS.<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: NANA
YEBOAH AFARI OBUAGYAN &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>DAASEBERE
AKUAMOAH BOATENG II OMANHENE OF KWAHU TRADITIONAL AREA.<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTY)<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">

LARTEY J.A. [PRESIDING], AKOTO-BAMFO
[MRS.] J.A., DOTSE 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>LARTEY,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Koforidua dated February 17,
2003 granting an order of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Eastern
Regional House of Chiefs, (herein referred to as the appellant) and a further
order of prohibition against the Judicial Committee of the said chieftaincy
tribunal from continuing the hearing of the matter. <o:p></o:p>The
background facts of this suit are that the Omanhene of Kwahu traditional area
(herein also referred to as the interested party) commenced chieftaincy
proceedings against the Divisional Chief of the area and four other lesser
chiefs (herein referred to as the respondents) alleging that the respondents
have elevated themselves to status they do not deserve and which is contrary to
custom. After the respondents had filed their answer to the claim the
interested party applied to the Judicial Committee of the same tribunal for an
interlocutory injunction, but before it could be taken the respondents filed
another application to challenge the jurisdiction of the appellant on the
ground that since the matter involves constitutional interpretation of article
270(1) of the 1992 Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which should determine
it. The committee had no difficulty in dismissing the objection because in its
view what was before it was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. <o:p></o:p>On
October 10, 2001 the respondents appealed against the ruling, which appeal was
subsequently heard by the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs.
It is not easy from the record before us to discover precisely what happened
before the said Committee. Be that as it may, it seems to me that the most
important and relevant issue for determination by this court is whether or not
the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs through its Judicial committee was clothed
with jurisdiction to deal with the matter commenced by the paramount chief of
the Kwahu Traditional Area against the respondents. In other words, did the
High Court properly exercise its discretion to order the writs of certiorari
and prohibition to interfere with the smooth hearing of the chieftaincy matter
pending before the Judicial Committee of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs?
In his ruling the learned judge held as follows:— <o:p></o:p>"I
have examined and considered the issues raised and argued before me and I am of
the view that the petition before the respondent which involves an Omanhene and
divisional or Lesser Chiefs cannot be heard by the respondent. I uphold Counsel
for the applicants' submission that the respondent lacks Jurisdiction in this
matter. I accordingly grant the application and order that the Proceedings
........ be brought up to this court to be quashed and they are hereby quashed.
I also prohibit the respondent from further hearing the matter." <o:p></o:p>It
is this ruling which constitutes the subject matter of this appeal. The notice
of appeal contains the usual omnibus ground, namely, that the ruling is against
the weight of evidence. Subsequently four additional grounds were set out as
follows: <o:p></o:p>"1.
That the learned trial judges (sic) erred in law by holding that the Judicial
Committee of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs has no jurisdiction to
determine the matter. <o:p></o:p>2.
That the learned trial judge failed to adequately consider the peculiar facts
of the matter before him and that resulted in the erroneous decision he
delivered. <o:p></o:p>3.
That the ruling is wrong in law in that the matter is not amenable to the
prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition. The learned trial (judge)
relied on a case which has no bearing on the matter. <o:p></o:p>4.
That the High Court itself lacked jurisdiction in the matter." <o:p></o:p>Now
before examining the merits of the grounds afore-mentioned, I would like to
make a few preliminary observations on circumstances which would entitle the
High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over a traditional council
in exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. Briefly, it
is the traditional council which is normally clothed or vested with
jurisdiction over a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy arising within its
area. It follows therefore that the supervisory jurisdictio</main>