TH REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE PRESIDENT, UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, PE DITUNDINI ADIALA AYAGITAM III, NAB AZAGSUK AZANTOLOW II, PE OSCAR BATABI TIYIOAMU II AND KENNETH ADAYERI EX PARTE NAA BOHUGU MAHAMI ABDULAI SHERIGA, NAYIRI [2016]DLHC8241

TH REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE PRE... [2016]DLHC8241

Date	2016-12-21
Suit No.	D16/23/2017
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC8241

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

[2016]DLHC8241
																																						<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" >TH REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JUDICIAL COMMITTEE,
UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE PRESIDENT, UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE
OF CHIEFS, PE DITUNDINI ADIALA AYAGITAM III, NAB AZAGSUK AZANTOLOW II, PE OSCAR
BATABI TIYIOAMU II AND KENNETH ADAYERI<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NAA BOHUGU MAHAMI ABDULAI SHERIGA, NAYIRI<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
BOLGATANGA]<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">

D16/23/2017&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST DECEMBER,
2016<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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The Nayiri who is also the
Paramount Chief of Mamprugu Traditional Area in the Northern Region filed an
application in this Registry of this Court on 11th November, 2016
praying for an order committing the Respondents therein for contempt of
Court.&nbsp; In paragraph 3 of the affidavit
in support of the motion he described the Respondents in the following terms:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“…the 1st
respondent is the Judicial Committee of the Upper East regional House of
Chiefs, The 2nd respondent is the President of the Upper East
Regional House of Chiefs, the 3rd respondent is the chairman of the
1st Respondent, the 4th and 5th Respondents
are panel members of the 1st Respondent, while the 6th
Respondent is the lawyer assisting the 1st Respondent.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the 5th
Respondent was served with the contempt application papers, he in turn filed a
motion now under consideration on 17th November, 2016 under Order 81
rule 2(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C.I. 47 praying for
an Order to set aside the documents in respect of the contempt application for
irregularity.&nbsp; Order 81 rule 2(1) of C.I.
47 provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>“An application
may be made by motion to set aside for irregularity any proceedings, any step
taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order in it, and the
grounds of it shall be stated in the notice of the application.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The documents sought to be
set aside are listed in the notice of the motion as:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“ Motion on
notice for an order of committal for contempt of Court pursuant to Order 50
rule 1 of C.I.47; (2) Affidaivt in Support of motion on notice for an order of
committal for contempt of Court for irregularity on the grounds particularly
stated here under, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:54.0pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:108.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 108.0pt">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the said documents are not warranted by any rule of law or procedure; and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:54.0pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:108.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
-36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 108.0pt">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the said documents sin against section 33(5) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act
759 and Order 50 rule 1(4) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
(C.I.47).<o:p></o:p>What the 5th
Respondent/Applicant seeks to do is to prevent the contempt application from
being heard on merits on the grounds that it sings against section 33(5) of the
Chieftaincy Act of 2008, Act 759, to be referred to hereinafter as Act
759.&nbsp; In The Trustees Synagogue Church of
All Nations v Agyeman (2010) SCGLR 717, holding (3) at page 719, it was held in
respect of such an application that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“Where a
preliminary objection had been raised to a motion, the grounds of the objection
should be apparent without recourse to the affidavit or supporting
documents.&nbsp; If that could not be done,
then the preliminary objection would be improper…”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>