THE REPUBLIC vs. THE WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS (RESPONDENT) EX- PARTE NANA APENA III (APPLICANT) NANA YAW TUFUHENE AND 3 OTHERS (INTERESTED PARTIES) [2019]DLHC7052

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS (RESPONDENT) EX- PARTE NAN... [2019]DLHC7052

Date	2019-01-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E9/27/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7052

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J

BAFFOUR DWUMAH ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND THE INTERESTED PARTIES.

ASEMPAH ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

[2019]DLHC7052
																																						<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 WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX- PARTE NANA APENA III<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>NANA YAW TUFUHENE AND 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED PARTIES)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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. E9/27/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 24TH JANUARY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BAFFOUR
DWUMAH ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND THE INTERESTED PARTIES.<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">

ASEMPAH ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<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="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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>I
gather from the facts alluded to in this application that two stool families
are in contention over the divisional stool of Sewum which is the Adonten to
the Aowin paramount stool. They are the Apena family to which the applicant
belongs and the MesuPanyin family of the interested parties.<o:p></o:p>The
wrangling had persisted over the years until recently when following the
disputed installation of the applicant as the chief of Sewum and Adontenhene of
Aowin, the Interested Parties wrote a letter to the President of the Respondent
complaining about a purported confirmation by the Aowin Traditional Council of
the applicant’s installation. In this letter, (Exhibit NA 8), the Interested Parties
had stated that there was already in place a substantive and gazetted chief of
Sewum and Adontenhene of Aowin in the person of Nana MesuPanyin III who had not
been destooled. They thus challenged the basis of the traditional council’s
confirmation of the applicant’s installation and sought the intervention of the
President of the respondent.<o:p></o:p>Upon
receipt of Exhibit NA 8 the Registrar, at the direction of the President of the
respondent wrote to invite the Interested Parties and the Aowin Traditional Council
to a meeting with the Standing Committee of the respondent. The agenda of the
meeting was stated as: <o:p></o:p>“Discussions on the purported
confirmation of Nana Apena III as the substantive chief of Sewum and the
Adontenhene of Aowin Traditional Council.” (Exhibit 9). <o:p></o:p>The
applicant was not invited to this meeting and did not partake in it. <o:p></o:p>At
the end of the meeting, the Standing Committee was purported to have made a decision
confirming Nana MesuPanyin III as the substantive chief of Sewum and
Adontenhene of Aowin Traditional Area. This decision, embodied in a statement
contained in Exhibit NA 10 is the subject of the instant application.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant invokes the judicial review jurisdiction of this court in the nature
of certiorari to quash the said decision. The ground is simply that the applicant
was not part of the hearing at the meeting before the purported decision was
made. The decision confirming Nana MesuPanyin was made in clear breach of the
audialterampartem rule of natural justice as the applicant was not given the
opportunity to be heard.<o:p></o:p>The
application is strenuously resisted by the respondent and the interested
parties.<o:p></o:p>The
affidavit of the registrar of the respondent states that what took place before
the standing committee was an informal discussion and not a formal inquiry. He
explains that when the president of the respondent received what he calls a
petition from the Interested Parties, he referred same to the Standing
Committee based on which the Interested Parties and the acting President of the
Aowin Traditional Council were invited to meet with the Standing Committee. The
applicant was not invited because according to him the complaint was not against
the applicant but rather the Traditional Council. At the meeting the Standing Committee
interrogated the parties and examined documents. It was found that Nana
MesuPanyin III, the incumbent chief had not been destooled and his gazette was
intact. The Standing Committee therefore came to the conclusion that nana
MesuPanyin III ought to be considered as the substantive chief of Sewum until
he was destooled. This conclusion he says is an opinion expressed by the
Standing Committee and was based on the facts it had gathered. He claims the
parties who appeared had the opportunity of stating their cases. No rule of
natural justice was breached. The instant application therefore ought to be
dismissed.<o:p></o:p>The
affidavit in opposition of the 3rd interested party was in substance
not different from the account of the respondent’s registrar. He adds however
that the MesuPanyin stool of Sewum belongs to his Agona stool family. The
applicant’s family who are the owners of Apena stool are not eligible to mount
the stool of Sewum. According to him what made the difference at the meeting
was the gazette of Nana MesuPanyin III (Exhibit EM 2) which had not been
cancelled.<o:p></o:p>The
committee therefore relied on same to come to its conclusion. The committee
observed the rules of natural justice by hearing the parties that appeared. He
is also advised that certiorari does not lie against Exhibit NA 10.<o:p></o:p>