Aryeetey V Agbofu II and another

ABBAN JSC. The applicants were defendants in a suit before the Ga Traditional Council and the respondent was the plaintiff in the said suit. In her writ the respondent sought the following reliefs. namely, (a) a declaration that the first applicant had no right to nominate or elect and install the second applicant as the Manse of Dome (b)a declaration that the second applicant was not the right persons to be made chief of Dome and (c) an injunction restraining the second applicant from holding himself out as a chief. The writ of sermons was served on the applicants. Since title respondent was seeking an order (or an injunction against the applicants, she filed a motion on the application for an interim injunction to restrain the first applicant from electing and enstooling the second applicant as a chief, pending the hearing and the final determination of the substantive suit. This motion was served on the applicants, according to the records, 6/7 July 1988. But on 9 July 1988, that is, two days after they had been served with the motion, and the motion was still pending to be heard, the applicants went ahead and did the installation against which the motion had been filed. This fact was admitted by the applicants in an affidavit which they filed in opposition to the motion. In paragraph 4 of that affidavit the applicants deposed as follows:

"4 That the installation of the 2nd defendant (appellant) which the plaintiff-respondent seeks to restrain has already taken place i Saturday, 9 July 1988 as evidenced by police permit granted by letter of8luly 1988."

When eventually the Ga Traditional Council heard the motion, it dismissed it, mainly on the grounds that the installation had already taken place. The council expressed itself as follows:

"Although the (applicants herein) were duly served with the motion on notice by the(respondent) on 7 July 1988, they went to perform the ceremony because they felt they had ten days within which to file their affidavit in opposition as stipulated a

The applicants applied to the National House of Chiefs for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, But that application was dismissed on 10 November 1993. The applicant have now repeated their application for leave before this, court. Was tile National house of Chiefs wrong in refusing leave ? Looking at the history of the case as set out above there is ill doubt that the applicants. having been served with the motion for the interim injunction