THE REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE GOMOA AKYEMPIM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX-PARTE: OPANYIN POBEE AND E. R. KOJO YOYOO [2013]DLSC2712

THE REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE GOMOA AKYEMPIM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX... [2013]DLSC2712

Date	2013-02-06
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/40/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2712

ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC

D. A. OTOO FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.

MICHAEL ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2712
																																						<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>JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE GOMOA AKYEMPIM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE:&nbsp; OPANYIN POBEE
AND E. R. KOJO YOYOO<o:p></o:p>[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 APPEAL NO. J4/40/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>D. A. OTOO FOR THE
APPLICANT/APPELLANT/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">

MICHAEL
ARTHUR DADZIE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANSAH JSC (PRESIDING), ANIN YEBOAH JSC,
BAFFOE BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>ANIN
YEBOAH, JSC<o:p></o:p>This appeal raises for our consideration a point
of law that is at the heart of our judicial system and the extent to which
non-compliance with it may have the effect of invalidating any decision
rendered in a case where such a non-compliance did take place. The said point
of law is this: Whether a tribunal that has jurisdiction to determine a subject
matter may by pursuing a course of procedure that denies to a party to the
cause the right to be heard might thereby act in excess or lack of
jurisdiction. Although this principle is of fundamental importance to courts in
the exercise of their jurisdiction to determine cases, it appears from the
record of appeal with which we are concerned in this matter that the learned
justices of the two lower courts did not fully appreciate its import in
relation to the application for judicial review in the nature of certiorari.
The determination of this point of law in our thinking is not unimportant to
procedural law and in particular Judicial Committees of Traditional Councils
established by the Chieftaincy Act. The circumstances in which the point for
our decision in this appeal arises are briefly stated shortly.<o:p></o:p>The respondent to this appeal commenced
proceedings before the Judicial Committee of Gomoa Akyempim Traditional Council
against Supi Kobina Ogyam, Supi Kobina Sekyi and Opanin Opobi alias Bentum
claiming the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The five
sections of the Kakaba Anona family headed by plaintiff are the sole authority
to install a Tufuhene for Apam.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The purported
acts of confinement of 3rd defendant and his intended installation
are unlawful.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General damages
for unlawful usurpation of plaintiff’s rights<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Perpetual
injunction restraining defendants their agents, servants, assigns, etc from
interfering with plaintiff’s rights.<o:p></o:p>One Supi Kwame Eyiah of Apam died and customarily
a successor ought to be installed. According to the appellant, he was by custom
the rightfu</main>