REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND CHIEFTAINCY SECRETARIAT EX-PARTE NANA EHUNABOBRIM IDUN GYAN IX [2013]DLSC2754

REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND CHIE... [2013]DLSC2754

Date	2013-07-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/11/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2754

J. DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

ANIN-YEBOAH JSC

P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

A. A. BENIN JSC

J. B. AKAMBA JSC

K. O. AMPONSA- DADZIE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY /APPELLANT /APPELLANT.

AURELIUS AWUKU FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2754
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CENTRAL
REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND CHIEFTAINCY SECRETARIAT<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE
NANA EHUNABOBRIM IDUN GYAN IX<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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. J4/11/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 19TH JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>K.&nbsp; O.&nbsp;
AMPONSA- DADZIE FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY /APPELLANT /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">

J. DOTSE
JSC (PRESIDING), ANIN-YEBOAH JSC, P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, A. A. BENIN JSC, J. B.
AKAMBA JSC<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;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT
<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>AKAMBA, JSC<o:p></o:p>This
appeal lies from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 16th
December 2010 which affirmed the ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated 13th
January 2006.<o:p></o:p>FACTS<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 14 February 1987, the Applicant/Respondent/Respondent,
hereinafter simply the Respondent, was enstooled as the Omanhene of the
Kwamankese Traditional Area. He was given the stool name of Ehunabobrim Nana
Idun Djan IX. Some seven years later, and precisely on the 7th
February 1994 a petition was filed by some citizens of the traditional area at
the Central Regional House of Chiefs, the 1st Respondents herein,
seeking to destool him. &nbsp;From every
indication the action is still pending determination.<o:p></o:p>While
the petition is waiting to be heard and disposed of before the 1st
Respondent, certain citizens of the traditional area have purportedly enstooled
the Interested Party/Appellant/Appellant, herein after simply the Appellant as a
rival Omanhene of the Kwamankese Traditional area.<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile
the 1st Respondent with full knowledge of the pendency of the
petition, forwarded documents to the Chieftaincy Secretariat (which was a party
to the application at the High Court, Cape Coast as 3rd Respondent)
and the 2nd Respondents for the name of the Appellant to be entered
into the National Register of Chiefs as the Omanhene of the Kwamankese
Traditional Area. The name of the Applicant was accordingly entered as
requested hence the present action was initiated.<o:p></o:p>On
8th February 2005, the High Court, Cape Coast granted the Respondent
herein, then as Applicant /Respondent, extension of time to institute certiorari
proceedings against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents. On 23rd May 2005, Albert Gabby Taylor successfully
applied and was joined to the action as an Interested Party. A pursuant notice
was subsequently filed for a judicial review for certiorari to issue to quash
the purported gazette of the Interested Party/Appellant as Omanhene, which was
apparently done without notice to the Respondent. The application also prayed
for an order of mandamus to compel the restoration of the name of the respondent
to the National Register of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>On
13th January 2006, the High Court, Cape Coast per Nana
Gyamera-Tawiah, J granted the order for judicial review in the nature of
certiorari quashing the entry of the name of the Interested Party in the
National Register of Chiefs as the Omanhene of the Kwamankese&nbsp; Traditional Area. Aggrieved by the decision
of the High Court, Cape Coast, the Interested Party/Appellant appealed to the
Court of Appeal which on 16th December 2010 dismissed same, thereby
affirming the decision of the lower court. Further aggrieved by the dismissal,
the present appeal has been brought to this court.<o:p></o:p>GROUNDS OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>Two
grounds of appeal have been filed in this court. They are:<o:p></o:p>(a)
That their Lordship’s judgment was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>(b)
That their Lordships misdirected themselves or erred in law in affirming the
order of certiorari to quash the entry of the name of the Interested Party.<o:p></o:p>ANALYSIS<o:p></o:p>I
will determine this appeal in the same sequence first with the omnibus ground
which contends that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p></</main>