THE REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE RESIDENT, UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, PE DITUNDINI ADIALA AYAGITAM III, NAB AZAGSUK AZANTILOW II, PE OSCAR BATABI TIYIAMU II AND KENNETH ADABAYERI EX PARTE NAA BOHUGU MAHAMI ABDULAI SHERIGA [2017]DLHC8229

THE REPUBLIC vs. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE RES... [2017]DLHC8229

Date	2017-01-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. 217/95
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC8229

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

ROBERT TATER FOR THE 5TH RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

MAJEED AMANDI LED BY COLLESTON A. MORGAN FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLHC8229
																																						<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>JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, THE RESIDENT, UPPER EAST
REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, PE DITUNDINI ADIALA AYAGITAM III, NAB AZAGSUK
AZANTILOW II, PE OSCAR BATABI TIYIAMU II AND KENNETH ADABAYERI<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE NAA BOHUGU MAHAMI ABDULAI SHERIGA<o:p></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">

SUIT
NO. 217/95&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
23RD JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ROBERT
TATER FOR THE 5TH RESPONDENT/APPLICANT<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">

MAJEED
AMANDI LED BY COLLESTON A. MORGAN FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT.<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">

</div>The
Nayiri, the Paramount Chief of Mamprugu Traditional Area in the Northern Region,
filed an application in the Registry of this court on 11th November,
2016 praying for an order committing the respondents therein for contempt of
court. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the motion he described
the respondents in the following terms: <o:p></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>After
the 5th respondent/applicant, herein after referred to as the
applicant, was served with the contempt application papers, he immediately 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. 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, judgement or order in it,
and the grounds of it shall be stated in the notice of the application.”<o:p></o:p>The
documents sought to be set aside are listed in the notice of the motion as:<o:p></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) Affidavit 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>(i)&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>(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 r 1(4) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I.
47)”<o:p></o:p>What
the applicant seeks to do is to prevent the contempt application from being
heard on merits on the grounds that it offends section 33(5) of the Chieftaincy
Act of 2008, Act 759, to be referred to hereinafter as Act 759. In the Trustees Synagogue Church of All Nations v Agyeman (2010) SCGLR 717,
holding (3) at page 719, it was stated in respect of such an application that:<o:p></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. If that
could not be done, then the preliminary objection would be improper...”<o:p></o:p>Also
in Benyarko and Others v Central Ghana Conference
of Seventh Day Adventist Church (2001
– 2002) 2GLR 473, Lartey JA, as he then was, quoted at page 475 of the
report the Gambian case of Ka</main>