NANA OBENG NUAKO III vs. ODEEFUO BOA AMPONSEM, OKYEAME TIEKU, KWABENA HENE AMPONG AND THE REGISTRAR DENKYIRA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [2012]DLCA8646

NANA OBENG NUAKO III vs. ODEEFUO BOA AMPONSEM, OKYEAME TIEKU, KWABENA HENE AMPON... [2012]DLCA8646

Date	2012-06-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/194/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA8646

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA J.A.

DENNIS ADJEI J.A.

MR. MICHAEL ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

MRS. KWADWO TUFFOUR FOR THE APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLCA8646
																																						<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" >NANA OBENG
NUAKO III<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ODEEFUO BOA AMPONSEM, OKYEAME TIEKU, KWABENA HENE AMPONG AND THE REGISTRAR DENKYIRA
TRADITIONAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; HI/194/2011&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; &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: 28TH
JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. MICHAEL ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/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">

MRS. KWADWO TUFFOUR FOR THE
APPLICANTS/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 J.A. (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA J.A., DENNIS
ADJEI J.A.<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">

JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 9th
day of August 2010.&nbsp; The said Court
granted an application for judicial review to wit:- Certiorari to quash the
decision of the 1st respondent/appellant’s purported destoolment of
the applicant/respondent and his direction to the appropriate royal family to
appoint a regent.&nbsp; The
respondents/appellants would be simply referred to as the appellants and the
applicant/respondent as the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts of this appeal are that the respondent is the chief of Dunkwa-on-offin
having been installed in June 2006 in accordance with customary practices and
usages of the people of Dunkwa in the Denkyira Traditional Area.&nbsp; The respondent as part of the customary
practice and usage had to be introduced by the Queenmother of Dunkwa to the 1st
appellant, the Omanhene of the Denkyira State to perfect his installation.&nbsp; After the demise of the then Queenmother, a
new Queenmother had to be installed, and was installed to perform that
task.&nbsp; On the 28th day of
April 2010, the 1st appellant invited various parties to settle the
impasse concerning the installation of the new Queenmother.&nbsp; At the said meeting, the head of family of
the respondent stated categorically that he will not allow the Queenmother to
be selected from any other family apart from his family.&nbsp; He also stated that he would not allow the
queenmother selected from any other family to swear the great oath to the 1st
appellant.&nbsp; The 1st appellant
stated that he would not countenance any foolishness in the matter.&nbsp; When the sub-chiefs and elders of the
respondent heard the abuse, they whisked him into a waiting car and brought the
meeting to an abrupt end.&nbsp; Based on this
the 1st appellant wrote a letter to the respondent purporting to
have withdrawn recognition for the respondent as the chief of Dunkwa.&nbsp; The 1st appellant also requested
the royal family of Dunkwa to appoint a regent for the Dunkwa stool with
immediate effect.&nbsp; Based upon these, the
respondent brought up an application for judicial review under Order 55 of C.I.
47 for an order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st
appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon
hearing arguments put forth for and against the application by counsel, the
learned High Court Judge granted the prayer of the respondent and ordered
Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st appellant.&nbsp; The trial judge also awarded costs of
GH¢400.00 against the 1st appellant.&nbsp;
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial judge, the appellants
have filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>“i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial High Court Judge erred by
holding that the 1st respondent had unilaterally destooled the
applicant.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial High Court Judge erred failing
to appreciate that the meeting convened by the respondents did not constitute
an adjudicating body or exercised a quasi or judicial function.<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Judge erred by holding that the
act of the respondents is amenable to certiorari when the evidence adduced
before the Cou</main>