THE REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE NII AYI BONTE II (NII OKAIDJA III INTERESTED PARTY) [2014]DLHC8254

THE REPUBLIC vs. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS; EX PARTE NII AYI BONTE II (NII OKAIDJ... [2014]DLHC8254

Date	2014-11-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C10/26/14
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC8254

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

W. A. N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT

HON. J. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERESTED PARTY.

[2014]DLHC8254
																																						<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>NATIONAL HOUSE
OF CHIEFS;<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NII
AYI BONTE II<o:p></o:p>(NII OKAIDJA
III INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
NO.C10/26/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 7TH
NOVEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>W.
A. N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>HON.
J. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE RESPONDENT <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">

AND
INTERESTED PARTY.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicant herein, Thomas Okai,
alias Tommy Okine, described himself as the Gbese Mantse under the Stool name
of Nii Ayi Bonte II. On 18th September, 2014 he filed a motion on
notice praying for an order to bring up to this court and quash by writ of
certiorari the decision of the National House of Chiefs, hereafter called the
Respondent, dated 16th July, 2014, removing his name from the
National Register of Chiefs. He also prayed for a consequential or ancillary
order directing the Respondent to restore his name in the said Register as
Gbese Mantse, and for any order as the court may consider just or proper to
make. Upon an application by one Nii Okaidja III, he was joined to the action
as the Interested Party. He equally presented himself as the Gbese Mantse and
the Adonten of the Ga State, known in private life as Bill Annan. The reasons
for joining the action are more particularly contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of
the affidavit he filed in opposition to the motion referred to, upon joining
the action. The paragraphs are in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>“2.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the reason I applied to be
joined was that I was the one who petitioned the National House of Chiefs to
have the Applicant’s name removed from the National Register of Chiefs as a
result of which he filed the present Application.<o:p></o:p>3.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Though the Applicant knew my
interest in the matter at the time he applied for the Order of Mandamus which
led to his name being inserted in the National House of Chiefs, he failed to
join me to the action and deprived me of the opportunity of being heard resulting
in obtaining the said Order hence my Application for joinder which was granted”<o:p></o:p>In moving the motion on behalf of the
Applicant, his lawyer, Mr. Adumua-Bossman, contended that the heart of the case
of his client is that in removing his name from the Register of Chiefs, the
Respondent acted on a complaint brought before it by faceless and unidentified
persons, and as if that was not enough, the Applicant was not given notice to
answer to the complaint made against him or afforded the opportunity to explain
why his name should continue to be in the Register. He thus submitted that the
conduct of the Respondent amounted to an outright breach of the rules of
natural justice, the audi alteram partem rule, in particular. The complaint
referred to by the Applicant is contained in a letter dated 1st
April, 2014. It emanated from the office of the solicitor for the Respondent
and the Interested Party, Hon Ayikoi Otoo, addressed to the President of the
Respondent. It is exhibited as “NO 12” by the Interested Party.<o:p></o:p>In the letter, described as a petition,
the Interested party sought to convey to the&nbsp;
attention of the Respondent that the Applicant relied on a judgment of
the Judicial Committee of the Greater-Accra House of Chiefs, dated 17th
February, 2003, which enabled him obtain a mandamus order compelling his name
to be inserted in the National Register of Chiefs; that at the time of the
application for the mandamus, Applicant was well aware that the validity of the
judgment was under attack and eventually, by a unanimous decision of the
Supreme Court, dated 16th January, 2014, it was declared a nullity,
having been given without jurisdiction. In his affidavit, the Interested Party
deposed that the Applicant was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court
declaring the judgment a nullity, hence he filed a review which was unanimously
dismissed. It is therefore his case that the judgment relied on by the
Applicant having been declared a nullity, it robbed the mandamus order of its
efficacy. It was as a result of this scenario that the Interested Party applied
for the name of the Applicant to be deleted from the Register of Chiefs. The
Respondent upheld the application, consequently, the name of the Applicant was
crossed out from the Register. It was that act that gave rise to the instant
application for certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondent and for a
further order for the name of the Applicant to be restored in the Register.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent filed an affidavit in
opposition to the motion. It was deposed to by its Registrar. He confirmed that
the name of the Applicant was deleted from the Register based on a petition the
Respondent received from the Interested Party. According to the Registrar, the
Respondent referred the petition to its Research Committee which considered it
and recommended the removal of Applicant’s name from the Register; that the
</main>