AMONOO vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND ANOTHER [2005]DLSC966

Date	2005-07-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC966

AKUFFO JSC

WOOD JSC

OCRAN JSC

ANSAH JSC

ANINAKWA JSC

EBOW QUASHIE (WITH HIM C KUDZEDZI) FOR THE APPELLANT

EBOW DAWSON FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT

[2005]DLSC966
																																						<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">AMONOO<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><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 AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005] 1 GLR 577<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>EBOW QUASHIE (WITH HIM C KUDZEDZI) FOR THE APPELLANT<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 SECOND RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

AKUFFO, WOOD, OCRAN, ANSAH AND ANINAKWA JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Akuffo JSC. <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 appellant’s complaint is that nananom of the
National House of Chiefs were in error when they declined jurisdiction to hear
his petition. As is clear from paragraph (4) of the appellant’s reply to the
second respondent’s statement of case herein, the gravamen of the petition (or
as counsel rather inappropriately expressed it, the “beef of the appellant”)
was that “in transmitting the chieftaincy
declaration forms the first, respondent (the Central Region House of Chiefs)
merely ‘rubber stamped’ the forms as presented by the Oguaa Traditional
Council.” Consequently, the appellant, as petitioner, sought from nananom a
declaration that the name of the second 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 chieftaincy declaration
form transmitted by the first 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, ie the Constitution, 1992 and the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). It is
clear from articles 272 and 273 of the Constitution, 1992 that the National
House Chiefs has multiple functions, which may be broadly categorised as
administrative (including rendering advice, progressively rationalising
customary laws towards unification of the various systems, compiling lines of
succession, modernising traditional customs and usages, regulating the
activities of the National House of Chiefs, etc) and judicial.<o:p></o:p>Under its judicial function, the National House of Chiefs 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 appellant sought to invoke by his petition. By
constitutional dicta, the judicial function, whether appellate or original, is
exercised only by a judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs. Any
function performed by any other committee or grouping within the National House
of Chiefs 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 National House of
Chiefs, in that it fits into one or more of the situations specified in article
273(5) of the Constitution, 1992, 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 of chiefs.
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. In this case, the substantive cause or matter affecting the second
respondent’s status as a chief was, at the time, the petition came before
nananom (and still is) pending for determination by the Central Regional House
of Chiefs. Thus, all that the petition sought was to have the second
respondent’s name removed from the register of chiefs for being based on the
alleged falsehoods in the chieftaincy declaration form. This reason does not,
in the circumstances, give rise to a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy,
such as would justify the judicial committee assuming jurisdiction. Rather, the
petition called upon the judicial committee to exercise an administrative
function (or, at best, supervisory jurisdiction over the research committee of
the National House of Chiefs), and therefore, sought to invoke a power the
judicial committee does not possess.<o:p></o:p>