THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS PER THE PRESIDENT, KUMASI (RESPONDENT) THE REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS PER THE PRESIDENT, CAPE COAST (RESPONDENT) OGUAA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL PER THE PRESIDENT, CAPE COAST (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE EBUSUAPANYIN KWAKU KAKRABA @ JOSEPH K. MENSAH (APPLICANT) SUBSTITUTED BY JOHN DARKO OTOO HOUSE NO. E.162/3, JUKWA ROAD CAPE COAST (RESPONDENT) KWEKU SEMPAH @ THOMAS YALLEY HOUSE NO. WE 20, WINDY RIDGE OPPOSITE AHMADYYIA SCHOOL TAKORADI [2015]DLCA8326

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS PER THE PRESIDENT, KUMASI (RESPOND... [2015]DLCA8326

Date	2015-11-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/39/2009
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8326

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MR. DANIEL ARTHUR FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE OTHER PARTIES

[2015]DLCA8326
																																						<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 PER THE PRESIDENT, KUMASI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>THE REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS
PER THE PRESIDENT, CAPE COAST<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>OGUAA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL PER
THE PRESIDENT, CAPE COAST<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE EBUSUAPANYIN KWAKU
KAKRABA @ JOSEPH K. MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>SUBSTITUTED BY JOHN DARKO OTOO HOUSE
NO. E.162/3, JUKWA ROAD CAPE COAST<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>KWEKU SEMPAH @ THOMAS YALLEY HOUSE
NO. WE 20, WINDY RIDGE OPPOSITE AHMADYYIA SCHOOL TAKORADI<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED PARTY/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
CAPECOAST]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.&nbsp; HI/39/2009&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 NOV, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. DANIEL ARTHUR FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/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">

NO LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FOR THE OTHER PARTIES<o:p></o:p>

</div>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">

HONYENUGA J.A.
(PRESIDING), GYAN J.A., SUURBAAREH 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>HONYENUGA,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 14th
day of February, 2008 which dismissed an application for Judicial Review in the
nature of certiorari and prohibition to quash the decision of the 1st
and 2nd respondents for having entered the name of the Interested
Party/Appellant into the Register of the National House of Chiefs and for a
further order restraining him from holding himself as the Odikro of Pedu.&nbsp; The Interested party/appellant would be
simply referred to as the appellant and the respondents and the
applicant/respondent as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and
4th respondents respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts of this appeal were that the 4th respondent per his lawful
attorney John Darko Otoo who was later substituted for the 4th
respondent filed a motion on notice under Order 55 Rule 1 of C.I. 47, for an
order of Judicial Review to quash by certiorari and prohibition, the decision
of the 1st respondent to enter the name of the appellant into the
National Register of Chiefs which matter had been pending before the 3rd
respondent.&nbsp; When the appellant had
notice of the entry of the appellant’s name through a search conducted at the
registry of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent caused
his Lawyers to write a letter drawing the attention of the 1st, 2nd
and 3rd respondents to the irregularity of that decision.&nbsp; The Regional Registrar of the 2nd
respondent rather wrote a letter addressed to the 4th respondent and
advised him to expedite action on the trial.&nbsp;
The 4th respondent caused their Lawyer to write another
letter to have the name of the appellant removed from the National Register of
Chiefs but to no avail.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon
hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge granted the
application and ordered the 1st respondent to remove the name of the
appellant from the National Register of Chiefs and further prohibited him from
holding himself up as the Odikro of Pedu.&nbsp;
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial judge, V.G.K. Ayimey J, the
appellant filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the ruling is against the weight of affidavit evidence adduced at the trial.<o:p></o:p></sp</main>