THE REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS EX PARTE OPANYIN KOBINA AMOAH AND KOJO NHRUMAH [2009]DLSC4553

THE REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS EX PARTE OPANYIN KOBINA AMOAH... [2009]DLSC4553

Date	2009-01-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO J4/8/2008
Citation No.	[2009]DLSC4553

WOOD (MRS) C.J (PRESIDING)

BROBBEY J.S.C

ANSAH J.S.C

DOTSE J.S.C

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C

KWABENA OWUSU FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

GUSTAVA ADDINGTON FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT

[2009]DLSC4553
																																						<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>CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE OPANYIN
KOBINA AMOAH (APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS) AND KOJO NHRUMAH
(INTERESTED
PARTY/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, 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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO J4/8/2008&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14TH JANUARY, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWABENA OWUSU FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>WOOD (MRS) C.J (PRESIDING), BROBBEY J.S.C, ANSAH J.S.C, DOTSE J.S.C, BAFFOE-BONNIE
J.S.C<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>BROBBEY,
J.S.C:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The undisputed facts in this
application were that the occupant of the Adonten Stool of the Twifo Hyeman
Traditional Area died: Succession to that stool was the prerogative of the
Aberadze family of that Traditional Area. It was alleged that the Obaapaanin
and head of that family were acting on the instructions of the paramount chief
of Twifo Hemang Traditional Area, the first respondent herein, to impose on the
stool as a Adontenhene one Mensah Marfo who did not hail from the right lineage
of the Adonten Stool.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The litigation started by the Stool elders filing a petition in the
Central Regional House of Chiefs for a declaration to prevent the installation
of Mensah Marfo as Adontenhene. The appellants in the instant appeal then filed
an application in the Cape Coast High Court to restrain the Regional House from
hearing the petition on the grounds of want of jurisdiction. The basis of the
application was this; the general rule is that Regional Houses of Chiefs are
mandated to try disputes involving the Asantehene and paramount chiefs as
stated in the Chieftaincy Act, 1971(Act 370), s. 23(1) which provides that <o:p></o:p>“Each
Regional House of Chiefs shall have the following original and appellate
jurisdiction:-<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Original jurisdiction in all matters relating to a
paramount stool or the occupant of a paramount stool…”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; On the other hand, traditional
councils are mandated to try disputes involving chiefs below paramount chiefs.
The authority for this is Act 370, s. 15(1) which reads:<o:p></o:p>“Subject
to the provisions of this Act and to any appeal therefor, a Traditional Council
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any cause or matter
affecting Chieftaincy which arises within its area, not being one to which the
Asantehene or a paramount chief is a party.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Adonten stool is a divisional one which is below a paramount stool:
The applicants therefore argued that a dispute involving it should be tried in
the Twifo Heman Traditional Council but not the Regional House of Chiefs. The
respondents opposed the application by contending that since disputes involving
a paramount chief were triable in Regional Houses of Chiefs and the first
respondent was a paramount&nbsp; chief, the
dispute involving him should be tried in the Central Regional House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>The High Court, presided over by B. O. Tetteh J., granted the
applicants’ application by ruling that the Twifo Heman Traditional Area and not
the Central Regional House of Chiefs had jurisdiction to try the petition. The
respondents to the application appealed to the Court of Appeal. By a split
decision of two against one, the Court allowed the appeal and reversed the
decision of High Court. It was against that split decision that the appellants
have appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of the appeal were as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(a) The majority misdirected itself when it
held that the Judicial Committee of the Central Region had jurisdiction to hear
the petition titled <o:p></o:p>