THE REPUBLIC vs. DASASEBRE OTI BOATENG AND OKOGYEMAN ANKOMAH BASAPON [2016]DLCA4544

Date	2016-04-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/06/2014
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4544

ADJEI JA – PRESIDING

ACKAH-YENSU JA

MENSAH JA

[2016]DLCA4544
																																						<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>DASASEBRE OTI BOATENG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>AND OKOGYEMAN ANKOMAH BASAPON<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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">

SUIT NO: H1/06/2014&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
27th April, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ADJEI JA – PRESIDING, ACKAH-YENSU JA, MENSAH JA<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>ADJEI,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>The High Court Koforidua
on 15th June, 2012 granted an application for mandamus to compel the
Respondent/Appellant herein, the paramount Chief of New Juaben Traditional
Council to forward the Applicant’s duly completed Chieftaincy Declaration Forms
to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs for onward transmission to the National
House of Chiefs for registration of the Applicant’s name in the National
Register of Chiefs. The Respondent/ Appellant herein who would be referred to
in this appeal as the Respondent dissatisfied with the decision by the High
Court appealed against the said decision to this Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of the case
before the trial High Court were that the Applicant’s Asona family litigated
with the Ekuona family with respect to the family whose membership is eligible
to occupy the Suhyenhene and Mponuahene of the New Juaben Traditional Area. The
Applicant’s family which lost the suit at the Judicial Committee of New Juaben
Traditional Council won at the Judicial Committees of the Eastern Regional House
of Chiefs, the National House of Chiefs and the Supreme Court. The Applicant’s
family nominated, selected, elected, enstooled and installed the Applicant as
the Suhyenhene of New Juaben Traditional Council and the successor of&nbsp; Frimpong Manso II who was destooled before
the litigation between the two families ensued.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent on the
other hand failed to recognise the Applicant as Suhyenhene because he had not
sworn an oath of allegiance to him as the Paramount Chief of the Traditional
Council. The Applicant filled the Chieftaincy Declaration Form and submitted
same through the New Juaben Traditional Council for onward transmission to the
National House of Chiefs through the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs for the
Applicant’s name to be registered in the National Register of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>The High Court granted the
application for mandamus to compel the Respondent to perform his lawful and
statutory duty imposed on him by&nbsp;
Section&nbsp; 14 of&nbsp; Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondents
dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court which granted mandamus to
compel him to submit the Chieftaincy Declaration Forms through the Eastern
Regional House of Chiefs to the National House of Chiefs filed an appeal
against the said decision to this Court on 17th July, 2012. The two
grounds of appeal filed by the Respondents are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the
application for mandamus on the facts before the Court.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court below wrongly exercised its supervisory powers
over Appellant in granting Applicant/Respondent’s application for mandamus”.<o:p></o:p>We would resolve the
grounds of appeal in the manner the Respondent argued them. The first ground of
appeal is that the trial High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
application for mandamus with regards to the facts before the Court. The first
sub heading of the aforesaid ground of appeal was that the matter before the
Court in which the Applicant sought for judicial review in the nature of
mandamus was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which the jurisdiction of
the High Court has been ousted by statute. We would therefore discuss the issue
as to whether the matter before the Court was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section 117 of the courts
Act, 1993 (Act 459) defines cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Cause or matter affecting
Chieftaincy” means a cause, matter, question or dispute relating to<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the nomination, election selection, installation
or disposition of a person as a chief or the claim of a person to be nominated,
elected, selected, installed as a chief or<o:p></o:p>