EKOW GARBRAH vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND ANOTHER [2005]DLSC6162

Date	2005-07-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/5/2005
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC6162

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

WOOD (MS) J.S.C.

PROF. OCRAN J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ANINAKWA J.S.C.

MR. EBOW QUANSHIE WITH MR. C. KUDZEDZI FOR APPELLANTS.

MR. EBOW DAWSON FOR 2ND RESPONDENT

[2005]DLSC6162
																																						<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" >EKOW GARBRAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE
OF CHIEFS AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<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">

[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/5/2005&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 20TH JULY 2005<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. EBOW QUANSHIE
WITH MR. C. KUDZEDZI FOR 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">

MR.
EBOW DAWSON FOR 2ND RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">AKUFFO
(MS) J.S.C. (PRESIDING), WOOD (MS) J.S.C., PROF. OCRAN J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C.,
ANINAKWA J.S.C.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKUFFO,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>I
have been privileged to read beforehand the opinions about to be read by my
learned brothers Ocran and Ansah JJSC, and I fully agree with their
conclusions. I have only a few words to add to their erudite exposition of the
law on the matters raised herein. <o:p></o:p>The
crux of the Appellants' complaint is that Nananom of the National House of
Chiefs (hereinafter referred to as 'NHC') were in error when they declined
jurisdiction to hear their Petition. As is clear from paragraph 4 of the
Appellant's Reply to the 2nd Respondent's Statement of Case herein, the
gravamen of the Petition (or, as Counsel rather inappropriately expressed it,
the 'beef of the Appelants’) was that "in transmitting the Chieftaincy)
Declaration Forms (hereinafter referred to as 'CDF') the 1st Respondent (the
Central Region House of Chiefs) merely 'rubber stamped' the forms as presented
by the Oguaa Traditional Council. "Consequently, the Appellants, as
petitioners, sought from Nananom a declaration that the name of the 2nd
Respondent be removed from the National Register of Chiefs because the same had
been procured by fraud; the alleged fraud being that some of the responses
entered on the CDF transmitted by the 1st Respondent to the National House of
Chiefs were false.<o:p></o:p>The
National House of Chiefs is a creature of the law and its functions and powers
are governed entirely by the law that brought it into being, i.e. the
Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). It is clear from Articles
272 and 273 that the NHC has multiple functions, which may be broadly
categorised as administrative (including rendering advise, progressively
rationalising customary laws towards unification of the various systems,
compiling lines of succession, modernising traditional customs and usages,
regulating the activities of the NHC, etc.) and judicial. <o:p></o:p>Under
its judicial function, the NHC has appellate jurisdiction in 'any cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy', which has been determined by the Regional House
of Chiefs in a region. It also has original jurisdiction in any cause or matter
affecting chieftaincy, which lies within the competence of two or more Regional
Houses of Chiefs; or which is not properly within the Jurisdiction of a
Regional House of Chiefs, or which cannot otherwise be dealt with by a Regional
House of Chiefs. It is this original jurisdiction that the Appellants sought to
invoke by their Petition. <o:p></o:p>By
constitutional dictat, the judicial function, whether appellate or original, is
exercised only by a Judicial Committee of the NHC. Any function performed by
any other committee or grouping within the NHC is not a judicial function.
Where a party seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, his
Petition must demonstrate that the issues raised therein involve a cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy. Thus even where a matter otherwise appears to
qualify for the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee of the NHC, in that it fits into one or more of the situations
specified in Article 273(5), the Committee would still lack the authority to
entertain it if it does not arise from one of the situations listed in the
definition of cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. <o:p></o:p>The
meaning of ‘cause or matter affecting chieftaincy' is well known and has been
clearly defined by Section 117 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and Section 66
of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). These definitions cannot by any stretch
of the imagination be extended to include the administrative act of removing a
name from the National Register. Case law on the issue is also well settled,
and it is clear that the mere fact that a matter concerns a Chief, or
collaterally concerns his recorded status as a Chief, does not of itself
qualify it as a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. <o:p></o:p>