THE REPUBLIC vs. SHAI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX-PARTE NUMO NARTEH DONKOR NUMO HENRY COFFIE (SUBSTITUTED BY NUMO FRANCIS AG. HEAD OF LARTEY WORNUKPEKPE FAMILY OF MATETSE DODOWAA AND NUMO HAYFORD ADJANOR MATETSE, DODOWA [2020]DLCA8574

THE REPUBLIC vs. SHAI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX-PARTE NUMO NARTEH DONKOR NUMO HENR... [2020]DLCA8574

Date	2020-02-13
Suit No.	APPEAL NO.HI/11/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA8574

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA (PRESIDING)

H. KWOFIE JA

N. C. A. AGBEVOR JA

DOROTHY NEEQUAYE FOR INTERESTED PARTIES/ APPELLANTS

GODWIN TAMEKLO FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLCA8574
																																						<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><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>SHAI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE NUMO NARTEH DONKOR<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>NUMO HENRY COFFIE (SUBSTITUTED
BY NUMO FRANCIS&nbsp;&nbsp; AG. HEAD OF LARTEY
WORNUKPEKPE FAMILY OF MATETSE DODOWAA&nbsp;&nbsp;
AND NUMO HAYFORD ADJANOR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
MATETSE, DODOWA<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED/
PARTIES/ APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<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">

APPEAL NO.HI/11/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 13TH FEB , 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DOROTHY NEEQUAYE FOR INTERESTED PARTIES/ APPELLANTS<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">

GODWIN TAMEKLO FOR
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:105%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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">

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA
(PRESIDING), H. KWOFIE JA, N. C. A. AGBEVOR JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>B. ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is from the Ruling of the High Court (General Jurisdiction Accra) dated
the 31st day of July 2018.&nbsp; In
the High Court, the Respondent herein Numo Narteh Donkor sought an order for judicial
review in the nature of prohibition against the Appellants. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BACKGROUND FACTS <o:p></o:p>The
back ground facts to this appeal can be summarized as follows:- &nbsp;The Respondent aforesaid was served with a
civil process emanating from the Shai Traditional Council, whereby he was
commanded to attend to the Judicial Committee of the said Council to respond to
a claim by some Plaintiffs for; “a declaration that the next chief of
Matetse Draweh Dodowa shall come from the Wornukpekpe Family of Matetse Dodowa
and not from the Lartey Kpesehu Family of Matetse Dodowa”&nbsp; The Respondent’s case was that the said issue
of the proper ruling house had been settled by customary arbitration at the palace
of Nene Djagbletey VI Kutuwer Matse of Heowe on March 10 2014, wherein the
arbitrators made an award which was binding on all the parties who voluntarily
appeared and took part in the arbitration proceedings.&nbsp; The Respondent asserted further that since
the arbitral award was enforceable at the High Court, the Judicial Committee of
the Shai Traditional Council had no jurisdiction to re-open the matter in order
to determine the same issues already resolved between the parties who had
submitted themselves voluntarily to the arbitration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent asserted that
the exclusive original jurisdiction vested in the Traditional Council as
provided under Section 29(1) of the Chieftaincy Act 2008.&nbsp; Act 759 to hear and determine “a
cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy” within its area of jurisdiction,
did not include an enquiry into matters already determined by a competent
arbitral tribunal.&nbsp; The Respondent asserted
further that, there being no appeal against the arbitral award, it was binding
on all the parties par</main>