THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, GA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL. EX-PARTE: TEI NII TETTEH AHINAKWAH II THOMAS OKINE NII AKWETE KPOBO III [2008]DLCA6629

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, GA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL. EX-PARTE: TEI N... [2008]DLCA6629

Date	2008-06-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL H1/219/2007
Citation No.	[2008]DLCA6629

ABBAN J.A. [PRESIDING]

KANYOKE J.A.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.A

[2008]DLCA6629
																																						<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, GA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL.<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: TEI
NII TETTEH AHINAKWAH II THOMAS OKINE<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>NII AKWETE
KPOBO III<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">

<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 H1/219/2007 &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: 25TH JUNE, 2008<o:p></o:p>

ABBAN J.A. [PRESIDING], KANYOKE J.A.,
BAFFOE-BONNIE 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>BAFFOE
BONNIE, J.A. <o:p></o:p>In
his 20 page ruling delivered on 29th day of July, 2005 in respect of an
application for a writ of prohibition against the Judicial Committee of the Ga
Traditional Council brought by the respondents herein, the learned High Court
Judge concluded (at page 98 of the record) <o:p></o:p>“I believe to permit the re-agitation
of these matters already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction will
occasion hardship and oppression on the applicant and constitute an abuse of
the Court process. I shall accordingly grant the order of prohibition,
prohibiting the Judicial Committee of the Ga Traditional Council from further
proceeding with the matter” <o:p></o:p>It
is against this ruling that the appellants herein have filed this appeal on the
following grounds: <o:p></o:p>1. The learned High Court Judge was clearly
wrong in granting the application for prohibition in as much as the issue
before the Ga Traditional Council was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy
under the chieftaincy Act (Act 370). <o:p></o:p>2. The learned Trial Judge was wrong
in granting the application for prohibition in defence to a chieftaincy action
if heard and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Traditional Council to hear and
determine causes or matters affecting chieftaincy under Act 370 (i.e. the
Chieftaincy Act). <o:p></o:p>3. The learned Judge was wrong in law
in holding that the appellant is estopped per rem judicatem by the judgment of
the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in the case of Nii Tetteh Ahinakwah
II vs. Nii Ayitey Agbofu II in as much as the parties and issues involved in
the said cases were different. <o:p></o:p>4. The learned Trial Judge was wrong
in holding that the claim of the interested party before the Ga Traditional
Council was vexatious and oppressive. <o:p></o:p>Before
I come to the statements of case submitted by both counsel let me attempt to
give a brief background to this case. <o:p></o:p>The
appellants brought an action before the Judicial Committee of the Ga
Traditional Council claiming <o:p></o:p>a. A declaration that there are only
three Royal Ruling houses of GBESE namely <o:p></o:p>a. The Plenshiaku We, b) The Nii Tetteh
Ankramah We and c) Nii Akwete Krobo Saki We <o:p></o:p>b. A declaration that there is no
Royal/Ruling House of Gbese known as Naa Akua Onidin/Akwete Krobo Saki We in
Gbese. <o:p></o:p>c. A declaration that it is now the
turn of the Nii Akwete Krobo Saki We to provide a candidate to occupy the Gbese
stool which is currently vacant with the departure of Nii Ayite Agbofu II to
his village. <o:p></o:p>d. Perpetual Injunction restraining
the Defendants, his family, descendants, servants, assigns, privies and
supporters from attempting to install or installing a Mantse for the Gbese
Stool after the reign of Nii Ayite Agbofu II. <o:p></o:p>e. Injunction restraining the 1st
Defendant and his family, assigns, privies, descendants, servants and
supporters from installing the 2nd defendant as Mantse of Gbese. <o:p></o:p>f. A Declaration that the Plaintiff
family has no blood relations with Naa Onidin Akwete Krobo Saki Family <o:p></o:p>