IN RE: TANGA SKIN AFFAIR THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BAWKU TRADITIONAL COUNCIL BAWKU NABA ASIGRI ABUGRAGO AZOKA II EX PARTE TANGA NABA SALIFU AYARIGA [2015]DLCA8324

IN RE: TANGA SKIN AFFAIR THE REPUBLIC vs. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BAWKU TR... [2015]DLCA8324

Date	2015-03-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/4/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8324

ADJEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A

ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

JOHN APARIBO NDEBUGRI ESQ.FOR THE APPLICANT/APPLICANT/APPELLANT

JOSEPH DINDIOK KPEMIKA ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8324
																																						<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" >IN RE: TANGA
SKIN AFFAIR THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BAWKU TRADITIONAL
COUNCIL BAWKU NABA ASIGRI ABUGRAGO AZOKA II<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE TANGA NABA SALIFU
AYARIGA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
TAMALE]<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.H1/4/2015&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: 26TH MARCH, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN APARIBO NDEBUGRI
ESQ.FOR THE APPLICANT/APPLICANT/APPELLANT<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">

JOSEPH
DINDIOK KPEMIKA ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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">

ADJEI J.A.
(PRESIDING), LOVELACE-JOHNSON J.A, ACKAH-YENSU 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>ADJEI,J.A:<o:p></o:p>The
Applicant/Applicant/Appellant (hereafter called the Applicant) filed an
application for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari at the High Court
Bolgatanga to quash the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Bawku
Traditional Council delivered on 16th May, 2013 and a letter dated
14th June, 2013 and titled “Deposition
as a Chief of Tanga.”<o:p></o:p>The Applicant further sought an Order for injunction to
restrain Bawku Naba Asigri Abubrago Azoba II from interfering with the
Applicant’s traditional administration of the Tanga Division and/or enskinning
any person as Tanga Naba on the ground that no person is entitled to be
enskinned while the Applicant continued to hold office as Tinga Naba.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents/Respondents/Respondents would be referred
to as the Respondent in this appeal.&nbsp; The
appeal before this court is an interlocutory appeal arising from a ruling
delivered by the High Court Bolgatanga on an application filed by the Applicant
herein to set aside, “Affidavit in
Opposition” filed on the 16th January, 2014 and “Statement of Case
for the Respondents”, filed on 23rd January, 2014 as having been
filed out of time and without leave of the trial court and were therefore
irregular and contrary to law and procedure.<o:p></o:p>On 19th March, 2014, the trial High Court
dismissed the Applicant’s application as without merits and adopted the two
aforesaid processes filed out of time under Order 81 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I. 47.&nbsp; The
Applicant dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial High Court Judge delivered
on 19th March, 2014 filed an interlocutory appeal against same to
this Court on 31st March, 2014.&nbsp;
The grounds of appeal filed by the Applicant are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the learned trial Judge’s decision to
admit the Respondents’ affidavit in opposition and statement of case both filed
out of time was made without or in excess of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>ii. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the learned trial Judge erred
when he refused or failed to follow the principle of law laid down in the cases
of, Tindana (No.1) vs Chief of Defence Staff &amp; Attorney-General (No.1)
[2011]2 SCGLR 724,731 and Tindana (No. 2) vs. Chief of Defence Staff &amp;
Attorney General (No. 2) [2011]2 SCGLR 732,743-745 on the&nbsp; ground that the Applicant’s case was distinguishable
from the same.<o:p></o:p>iii.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the learned trial Judge
misconceived the principle of law laid down in the case of Halle &amp; Sons SA
vs. Bank of Ghana &amp; Warm Weather Enterprise Ltd. [2011]1 SCGLR
378,395-396&nbsp; and, in the result, wrongly
applied the same to the Applicant’s interlocutory application.<o:p></o:p>