THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, KUMASI AND THE BRONG AHAFO REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS EX PARTE; NANA ODURO BOAMAH AND 3 OTHERS AND TECHIMAN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [2017]DLSC4661

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, KUMASI AND THE BRONG AHAFO REGIO... [2017]DLSC4661

Date	2017-06-15
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/81/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC4661

PWAMANG JSC

OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ APPLICANT.

FREMPONG BOAMAH FOR THE APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS AND 1ST INTERESTED PARTY/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC4661
																																						<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, KUMASI<o:p></o:p>(1ST RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>THE BRONG AHAFO REGIONAL HOUSE OF
CHIEFS<o:p></o:p>(2ND RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE; NANA ODURO
BOAMAH AND 3 OTHERS (1ST INTERESTED)
AND TECHIMAN TRADITIONAL COUNCIL (2ND
INTERESTED)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/81/2017&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; 15TH JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSMAN ALHASSAN FOR THE 2ND
INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>FREMPONG BOAMAH FOR THE
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG, JSC.<o:p></o:p>The respondents to the application before me are
chiefs of the towns of Tuobodom, Tanoso, Kenyasi No.1 and Tanoboase in the
Brong-Ahafo Region and members of the Asanteman Council. They made efforts to
get their names onto the National Register of Chiefs as paramount chiefs of
their respective areas but met challenges including opposition by the applicant
herein. The respondents therefore filed a motion in the High Court, Kumasi
against the National House of Chiefs and the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs for judicial review in the nature of mandamus and prayed the court for
an order for their names to be entered in the National Register of Chiefs as
paramount chiefs. They added the Asanteman Council as an Interested Party. The
applicant herein applied and was joined by the High Court to the Mandamus
application as 2nd Interested Party. From the ruling of the High Court which
has been exhibited, the application for mandamus was supported by the Asanteman
Council but opposed by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd Interested Party who filed
affidavits in opposition and were represented by the same lawyer. From the
processes before me, though it was on 29th November, 2010 that the High Court,
gave a reasoned ruling granting the application, the formal order of Mandamus
is dated 22nd November, 2010. The relevant part of the order is as follows;<o:p></o:p>"IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondents herein enter the names of the applicants
herein in the register of the National House of Chiefs as paramount chiefs of
Tanoboase Traditional Council/Area, Tanoso Traditional Council/Area, Kenyasi
No. 1 Traditional Council/Area and Tuobodom Traditional Council/Area
respectively."<o:p></o:p>Being aggrieved by the
decision of the High Court, the respondents and the 2nd Interested Party all appealed
against it to the Court of Appeal and followed up with an application for stay
of execution but same was refused by the High Court. Thereafter, the
respondents herein got their names entered in the National Register of Chiefs,
extracts from which have been exhibited to their affidavit in opposition as
exhibits 'B1', 'B2', 'B3' and 'B4'. From the exhibits, the respondents’ names
were entered under Ashanti Region and not Brong-Ahafo Region. When the Court of
Appeal came to determine the substantive appeal, they held as follows in their
judgment dated 16 th July, 2015;<o:p></o:p>"...the
respondents went ahead and inserted or entered the names of the applicants in
the National Register of Chiefs. It is our considered opinion that the issue of
whether or not the names of the applicants should be inserted or entered in the
Registers of the National House of Chiefs and the Brong Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs is dead and buried and is no more a live issue worth a determination of
this court.....the court will not countenance an issue that is moot and is not
most likely to re-occur. For these reasons the appeal is struck out as being
moot, dead and buried."<o:p></o:p>Notwithstanding the good intentions with which the
Court of Appeal may have made their prediction that the issue will not re-occur,
it has refused to go away. Ten days after their decision, an appeal against it
was filed in the Supreme Court. Nonethele</main>