THE REPUBLIC vs. THE STANDING COMMITTEEE OF NKUSUKUM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: NANA EBIYATAKYI III, ASAFO KYEAME KOJO OTABIL, MR. ACQUAH AND OPANYIN BOAFO (APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS) INTERESTED PARTY: NANA KWESI BREBO [2012]DLCA8121

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE STANDING COMMITTEEE OF NKUSUKUM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL (RESPON... [2012]DLCA8121

Date	2012-10-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/35/12
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8121

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

MR. CAB-ADDAE FOR THE APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLCA8121
																																						<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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE STANDING
COMMITTEEE OF NKUSUKUM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: NANA
EBIYATAKYI III, ASAFO KYEAME KOJO OTABIL, MR. ACQUAH AND OPANYIN BOAFO<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>INTERESTED
PARTY: NANA KWESI BREBO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/35/12&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;DATE: 25TH OCTOBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
CAB-ADDAE FOR THE APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, DENNIS ADJEI JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA: -
This appeal is taken from the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the
15th May 2008. The trial court in the said judgment refused to grant
the appellants application for Certiorari to quash two decisions of the
Standing Committee of the Nkusukum Traditional Council. The decisions sought to
be quashed were:-<o:p></o:p>1.
The dissolution of the Assets and Management Committee of Kuntu and<o:p></o:p>2.
The dissolution of the No. 5 Asafo Company of Kuntu.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants aggrieved by the decision of the trial court filed this appeal with
eight grounds and prayed that the decision of the trial court be reversed.<o:p></o:p>Now,
upon a carefully study of the record of appeal in this case, I observed that
the trial proceeded on a procedural flaw which renders the entire trial a
nullity. Accordingly, after addressing the fundamental flaw in this judgment,
no useful purpose would be served in discussing the grounds of appeal
formulated by the appellant. What is this procedural flaw revealed by the
record of appeal?<o:p></o:p>The
action commenced by the appellants herein who were the applicants at the court
below was brought against the ‘’Standing Committee’’ of the Nkusukum
Traditional Council. The appellants action which was commenced on the 8th
of December 2003, was prosecuted under the old High Court Rules, namely LN
140A. From the above commencement date it is also obvious that the action was
brought under the old Chieftaincy Act, 1971, Act 370.<o:p></o:p>The
Chieftaincy Act, 1971(Act 370) did not create any such body as ‘’Standing
Committee’’ of a Traditional Council. This committee is unknown by the statute
that governed traditional institutions in this country. The body that was sued
by the appellants is thus a non-juristic entity and as such has no capacity to
sue or be sued. The respondent in this appeal namely the Standing Committee of
the Nkusukum Traditional Council clearly lacks the legal personality and for
that matter the entire proceedings commenced by the appellants was a nullity as
a result of this procedural flaw.<o:p></o:p>The
traditional councils were established under section 12 of the Chieftaincy Act,
Act 370. The jurisdiction of the traditional councils was provided under
section 15 of Act 370 as follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘’
15 (1) Subject to this Act and to an appeal from the traditional council, a
traditional council has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine a 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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(2) The jurisdiction conferred by this section
shall be exercised in accordance with sections 22 to 35.’’<o:p></o:p>