THE REPUBLIC vs. CHIEFTAINCY TRIBUNAL WESTERN REGION HOUSE OFCHIEFS (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. EX-PARTE: GEORGE KINGSLEY AMPONG (APPLICANT/APPELLANT) NANA KWADU AKYEREFO II [2012]DLCA4762

THE REPUBLIC vs. CHIEFTAINCY TRIBUNAL WESTERN REGION HOUSE OFCHIEFS (RESPONDENT/... [2012]DLCA4762

Date	2012-01-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/10/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA4762

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

BENSON J.A

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT

E.K. AMUA- SAKYI FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENTS.

[2012]DLCA4762
																																						<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>CHIEFTAINCY TRIBUNAL
WESTERN REGION HOUSE OFCHIEFS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: GEORGE
KINGSLEY AMPONG<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>NANA
KWADU AKYEREFO II<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED
PARTIES/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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: H1/10/2012&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: 11TH JANUARY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE
APPLICANT/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">

E.K.
AMUA- SAKYI FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES/RESPONDENTS.<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">

MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, BENSON 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>MARFUL-SAU, JA:- On
the 29th October,2010 the applicant/appellant herein &nbsp;referred to as appellant filed a motion in the
High Court, Sekondi for Judicial Review of certiorari to bring up to be quashed
the ruling of the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the Western Region House of Chiefs,
the respondents/respondents in this appeal who will be referred to as
respondents. The said ruling by the respondent was dated the 27th
October, 2010. The ruling was the outcome of a motion filed by the appellant
against the interested parties in this appeal praying to set aside the default
judgment of the respondent tribunal, delivered on 11th October,
2010, mainly on the ground that appellant was not served with a hearing notice
to attend the tribunal.<o:p></o:p>The
default judgment entered against the appellant appears at page 8 to 15 of the
record of appeal. In the judgment the tribunal held as follows;-<o:p></o:p>‘’1.The
Respondent George Kinsley Kwesi Ampong is hereby declared as having been
customarily destooled as Omanhene of Wassa Fisae Traditional Area with effect
from 23rd April 2002.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; 2.The Respondent George Kingsley Kwesi Ampong
is perpetually restrained from in any manner holding himself out as Omanhene of
Wassa Fiase Traditional Area.’’<o:p></o:p>It
was against this decision that the appellant filed a motion to set aside, on
the ground that he was not served, with a hearing notice before the tribunal
proceeded, to hear the case in his absence and entered the default judgment on
the 11th October 2010. The respondent tribunal on the 27th
October 2010 dismissed appellant’s motion to set aside the default judgment on
ground that appellant was in contempt of the tribunal, for describing himself in
the motion as the Omanhene of Wassa Fiase Traditional Area, when the default judgment
had declared him customarily destooled&nbsp;
as Omanhene, since 23rd April 2002. <o:p></o:p>Having
found that the appellant was in contempt, the respondent tribunal refused to
hear the appellant and dismissed the motion. Besides the contempt charge
against the appellant, the respondent tribunal held that it was satisfied from
the record of the case before it, that the appellant was served with a hearing
notice, but defaulted in attending the tribunal to defend the action brought
against him by the interested parties.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
and aggrieved by the decision of the respondent tribunal, particularly the
reasons assigned by the tribunal in dismissing the motion, the appellant
applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling dated
the 27th October 2010, refusing to set aside the default judgment.
The trial High Court in its judgment dated the 21st December2010
held that the appellant had not satisfied the grounds for which certiorari
woul</main>