THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, SEKONDI EX PARTE GEORGE KINGSLEY KWEKU AMPONG AND NANA KWADU AKEREFO III AND 5 OTHERS [2012]DLCA5701

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, SEKONDI EX PARTE GEORGE KINGSLEY KWEKU AMPONG AND... [2012]DLCA5701

Date	2012-01-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/10/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA5701

MARFUL-SAU JA

(PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

BENSON J

[2012]DLCA5701
																																						<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>HIGH COURT, SEKONDI [RESPONDENT] EX PARTE GEORGE KINGSLEY KWEKU AMPONG [APPLICANT/APPELLANT] AND NANA KWADU AKEREFO III AND 5 OTHERS<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;DATE: 11th JANUARY,
2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA, J.A<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the High court Sekondi dated the 21st
day of December, 2010. The said court dismissed an application for Judicial
Review in the nature of Certiorari to quash the ruling of the Chieftaincy
Tribunal of the Western Region House of Chiefs. The Applicant/Appellant would
be referred to as the appellant and the interested parties/respondents as the
respondents.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this appeal are that a default judgment was delivered against the
appellant on the 11 th day of June 2010 by the chieftaincy Tribunal of the
Western Region House of Chiefs in respect of a petition involving his destoolment.
The appellant later filed a motion to set aside the said default judgment. On
the 27 th October, 2010 the chieftaincy Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s
motion on the grounds that he was in contempt of the said<o:p></o:p>Tribunal
and that there was proof of service of the petition on him. On these grounds
the appellant filed an application for Judicial Review to bring up to quash the
ruling of the chieftaincy Tribunal dated the 27th October, 2010 at
the High Court Sekondi.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of his application for certiorari include:<o:p></o:p>“a. Abuse of legal process<o:p></o:p>b. Contempt of the High court, Kumasi<o:p></o:p>c. Jurisdiction error<o:p></o:p>d. Breach of the rules of Natural
Justice or the duty to be fair.<o:p></o:p>e. Collusion between the panel members
of the chieftaincy Tribunal, the interested parties and the Lawyers for the
interested parties.<o:p></o:p>f. Non compliance with the chieftaincy
Act, 2008 Section 33(8).<o:p></o:p>g. Abuse of process by forestalling or
pre-empting the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent filed an affidavit in opposition and submitted that the application
is wholly unmentorious and must be dismissed. They stated that they filed a
petition before the Judicial committee of the Western Regional House of Chiefs
against the appellant who was duly served by a search conducted. According to them,
the appellant was also served with a hearing notice and that his own search conducted
at the Registry of the said Committee revealed that he was served. The Judicial
Committee having satisfied themselves that the appellant was served, proceeded
with the hearing of the matter and delivered judgment perpetually restraining
the appellant from holding himself up as the Omanhene of the Wassa Fiase Traditional
Area. The respondents concede that the appellants filed an application to set
aside the judgment. They averred that in disregard for the judgment of the
judicial committee of the Western Region house of Chiefs, the appellant
continued to describe himself as Omanhene and therefore the said committee
dismissed his application to set aside the judgment. They therefore prayed that
the application for certiorari be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>Upon
hearing both lawyers for the parties, the trial Judge dismissed the application
for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari and awarded cost of GH¢3,000.00
against the appellant . The appellant being aggrieved by the decision of the
court filed the instant appealed on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>“1. The High court, Sekondi erred by
conferring in effect on the chieftaincy Tribunal of the Western Region House of
chief the jurisdiction to determine issue of contempt committed against itself,
contrary to Article 126(2) of the 1992 constitution and section 33(8) of the
chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 159) and contrary also to the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Re: Effiduase Stool Affairs No.2 (1998-99)SCGLR 639.<o:p></o:p>2. The High court, Sekondi erred by
failing (on its own showing) to apply the obligatory settled rules for
resolving controversies as to service vel non of prior notice of legal process
between opposing parties as laid down by binding decisions of the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>3. The High Court, Sekondi erred in
law in failing to make a finding that the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the Western
Region House of Chiefs committed a massive breach of the rules of natural
justice( OR of the compendious duty to be fair) in the common law aspect OR
ALTERNATIVELY, in its enacted aspect on Article 23, Article 33 and Article 296
of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>4. The High court, Sekondi further
erred in law by failing to make a finding that the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the
</main>