THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS EX PARTE: NANA AKWESI PEPRAH II. [2014]DLSC5078

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF... [2014]DLSC5078

Date	2014-05-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J4/46/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC5078

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

BONNIE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

KOFI LAMPTEY ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT /APPELLANT /APPELLANT.

GILLIE CARSON ESQ AND JOSEPH NICHOLAS NKRUMAH ESQ. FOR THE 1ST AND

2ND RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.

[2014]DLSC5078
																																						<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>THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND THE CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: NANA AKWESI
PEPRAH II. (APPLICANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL APPEAL NO.J4/46/2013&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; 7TH MAY 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KOFI LAMPTEY ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT /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">

GILLIE
CARSON ESQ AND JOSEPH NICHOLAS NKRUMAH ESQ. FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ANSAH J.S.C.,
BONNIE J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C., AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C. <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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>ANSAH
JSC.<o:p></o:p>On
7th May, 2014, this court gave a decision dismissing an appeal
brought before it against the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal dated
23rd February 2012, that certiorari did not lie to quash the deletion of the
applicant’s name from the National Register of Chiefs and intimated that full
reasons for the decision will be filed with the Registry of the court by the
close of work on Friday 8th May 2014; we hereby proceed to give the
reasons today.<o:p></o:p>For
a proper understanding and appreciation of the issues involved in this appeal,
it is needful to state the facts and background of this case, albeit in a brief
form.<o:p></o:p>Facts
and background of case:<o:p></o:p>They
are that the appellant filed a motion on notice under Order 55 Rule 1 of CI 47,
for an order of Judicial review to quash by certiorari the decision of the
research committee of the National House of Chiefs, (1st respondent)
held on the 30th January 2009, removing the name of the applicant
from the National Register of Chiefs. This appeal emanated from the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division sitting at Cape Coast), to this court when it decided
that was unable to quash by an order of certiorari the deletion of the
applicant’s name from the National Register of Chiefs when it was found that
the deletion of that name from the said National Register was illegal and
wrongful; the applicant maintained that after making that finding, the respondent
ought to have proceeded further to quash the decision by a certiorari, as a
necessary sequel thereto.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant averred in his affidavit in support of the application before the
High Court filed on 27 July, 2009 that he was gazetted as a chief on 29th
August 2009 and thereafter his adversaries afflicted him with several disputes
all aimed at getting his name removed as a chief from the National Register of
Chiefs, but to no avail. The reason claimed as providing the cassus belli for the efforts was his conviction
by the Circuit Court, Dunkwa-On-Offin, on 24th February 1992. Efforts
to have the letter removing his name from the National Register having failed,
the applicant applied for certiorari at the High Court, Cape Coast, but failed
in that application. The applicant was to suffer a similar fate at the Court of
Appeal, Cape Coast, where the appellate court stated that administrative
decisions are not amenable by certiorari.<o:p></o:p>Grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court:<o:p></o:p>Following
upon that failure at the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast, on 23rd February 2013, the
applicant brought the present appeal to this court on the grounds that,:<o:p></o:p>“a. The
appellant (sic) court having made a finding of fact that Exhibit E upon which the applicant/appellants
name was deleted from the National Registrar (sic) of Chiefs by the respondents
was illegal and wrongful, should have proceeded to quash the decision by
certiorari by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the
Republic v High Court, Kumasi, ex-parte Mobil (Ghana) Ltd Hagan interested
party [2005-2006] SCGLR 107.<o:p></o:p>b. The
Court of Appeal erred in law when they stated that Administrative decisions are
not amenable by certiorari contrary to the Wednesbury principle, namely that,
an administrative action or decision would be subject to Judicial review on the
grounds that it was illegal, irregular or procedurally improper.<o:p></o:p>