THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA EX-PARTE: KOFI YEBOAH AFFUM, INTERESTED PARTIES; OSEADEEYO FRIMPONG MANSO IV AND ANOTHER [2011]DLSC4100

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA EX-PARTE: KOFI YEBOAH AFFUM, INTEREST... [2011]DLSC4100

Date	2011-11-15
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/24/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4100

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO JSC

K. AMOAKO ADJEI FOR THE APPLICANT.

ACE ANKOMAH FOR 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.

[2011]DLSC4100
																																						<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 HIGH COURT,
KOFORIDUA EX-PARTE: KOFI YEBOAH AFFUM, INTERESTED PARTIES; OSEADEEYO FRIMPONG
MANSO IV AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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 MOTION NO. J5/24/2011 &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: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>K. AMOAKO ADJEI FOR THE
APPLICANT.<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">

ACE
ANKOMAH FOR 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING), DR. DATE-BAH
JSC, ANSAH JSC, BONNIE JSC, AND AKOTO-BAMFO JSC<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>I
have had the advantage of reading the encyclopaedic ruling of my masterly
brother Dr. Date-Bah JSC. As I find myself, with all the respect, unable to
agree with everything in his formidable and fulsome judgment I proceed to state
my opinion briefly.<o:p></o:p>As
the facts have been fully set out by him I would only refer to them where
necessary.<o:p></o:p>The Accrual of the&nbsp; Applicant’s right to apply for Mandamus<o:p></o:p>0.55
r. 3, as far as relevant to this case, provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Time
for making application<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
0in;margin-left:1.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:
justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;mso-bidi-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;">(1)&nbsp;
An application
for judicial review shall be made not later than six months from the date of the occurrence of the event giving
grounds for making the application.”<o:p></o:p>What
then in this case would constitute “the
date of the occurrence of the event giving grounds” for making the
application for mandamus?&nbsp; The operative
date for the application would be the date on which the Registrar of the
Eastern Regional House of Chiefs refused to transmit to the National House of
Chiefs the chieftaincy forms of the First Interested party submitted on his
behalf by the Traditional Council.<o:p></o:p>It
is important to set out in this connection the relevant occurrences.&nbsp; The first interested party submitted his
Chieftaincy forms and necessary fees to the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Council on
7/6/1999 for onward transmission to
the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs for further transmission to the National
House of Chiefs for “gazette notification”.&nbsp;
In a letter (Exh. AKS4) from his solicitors purportedly dated 2/12/2010 but said (Exh. AKS5) to have
been dated 4/11/2010 the 1st
interested party enquired whether his said chieftaincy forms had been
transmitted to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs.&nbsp; Exhibit AKS5 dated 9/11/2010 from the traditional Council replied that the said
chieftaincy forms had been forwarded to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs on
7/6/1999. This assertion is
confirmed by Exh. AKS 3.<o:p></o:p>On
16/12/2010 the 1st
interested party, per his solicitors wrote (Exh. AKS6) to the Eastern Regional
House of Chiefs enquiring whether the said chieftaincy forms had been
transmitted to the National House of Chiefs.&nbsp;
On the same 16/12/2010 the
Eastern Regional House of Chiefs, replied (exh. AKS 7) that the said forms had
not been so transmitted.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
first interested party then filed his mandamus application in the High Court,
Koforidua on 17/12/2010.&nbsp; It is said that time began to run for the
purposes of 0.55 r.3(1) of C147 as from the said 16/12/2010, namely the date on which the 1st interested
party was thus informed of the refusal by the 2nd interested party
to transmit the 1st interested party’s said chieftaincy forms to the
National House of Chiefs.&nbsp; If that be
right then the 1st interested party has probably set a re</main>