JUDGMENT OF AMUA SEKYI J.
The plaintiff, Nana Addo Ababio II, claims to be the Kyidomhene of the Boso Traditional Area. According to him, as Kyidomhene he is entitled to certain sums of money which from time to time the [p.55] government makes available to the Boso Traditional Council as allowance for the Kyidomhene. These sums, says the plaintiff, have not been paid to him. He has therefore brought this action for the court to determine how much is due to him as Kyidomhene and for the payment of the allowance with effect from April 1969. In support of his claim to be the Kyidomhene, the plaintiff has asked the court to take judicial notice of an entry in the Local Government Bulletin No. 32 dated 3 September 1976 which accorded him recognition as the Kyidomhene of the Boso Traditional Area.
The defendants resist the claim of the plaintiff on two grounds: first, the plaintiff's action is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy over which the High Court has no original jurisdiction; secondly, entries in the Local Government Bulletin No. 20 of 26 April 1974 show that the plaintiff is the Ankobeahene and that one Nana Opong Kwatia II is the Kyidomhene. It would appear that the allowance of the Kyidomhene is more than that of the Ankobeahene. The defendants say that the publication in Local Government Bulletin No. 32 was made without their knowledge or consent and that Nana Opong Kwatia II is still the Kyidomhene.
Upon being served with the writ and statement of claim, the defendants entered an appearance and filed a motion supported by an affidavit inviting the court to strike out the action for want of jurisdiction. They rely on section 52 of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), as amended by the Courts (Amendment) Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 101), s. 5 (3) which provides as follows:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or any other enactment the High Court, a Circuit and a District Court shall not have jurisdiction to entertain either at first instance or on appeal any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy."
There is nothing new about the legislature depriving the High Court of jurisdiction in certain matters. Such restrictions have always been part of our law, and examples will be found in the Chiefs Ordinance, 1904, the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), the Courts Act, 1960 (C.A. 9), the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), and now the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372). An examination of the decided cases shows that the attitude of the courts
