1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Edward Wiredu J.S.C., heard an appeal arising from a chieftaincy dispute in the Eguafo Traditional Area concerning nomination to the male Krontihene of the Atwia Bando Stool. The respondent asserted sole nomination authority as head of the Ntwea Royal Family, while the first appellant nominated the Bando queenmother to the male Krontire stool despite her continued occupancy of the female stool. The National House of Chiefs had affirmed the Central Region House of Chiefs’ ruling in favour of the respondent, holding that a queenmother cannot simultaneously ascend the male stool. On appeal, the appellants challenged jurisdiction over headship and alleged unresolved issues. The Supreme Court held that issue (b) falls within section 66 of the Chieftaincy Act, deferred to concurrent tribunal findings, recognized the respondent’s royal membership as sufficient to maintain the action, and dismissed the appeal while permitting amendment of capacity under Rule 22 of C.I. 27 and Article 129(4).
EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs dated 8th May 1991 which affirmed the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs in favour of the Respondent.
Two main submissions were urged on behalf of the appellants in this appeal. The first was that, the capacity in which the respondent sued, and by which he claims to have the sole authority and responsibility as the head of the Ntwea Royal Family to nominate a candidate for installation as the Krontihene of the Atwia Bando Stool of the Eguafo Traditional Area was one of status and that both the Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs and National House of Chiefs were not clothed with jurisdiction to adjudicate on and determine who is the accredited head of Ntwia Abusua in the Eguafo Traditional Area. It was therefore urged on behalf of the appellant's that the determination of the issue of headship not being "a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy" within the language and meaning of the Chieftaincy Act, Act 370 of 1971 the decision in favour of the Respondent was null and void.
The second ground urged on behalf of the appellants was that on the merits, two issues raised on the evidence for resolution by the National House of Chiefs, were not resolved. i.e. namely the issues as to headship of the Ntwea family and the issue as to whether the 2nd appellant was nominated by the proper person to ascend the Bando Stool? We will first deal with the second ground urged on behalf of the appellants.
To me, the main issues raised for determination, in this appeal are two in number.
(a) Whether on the evidence, the respondent/petitioner had capacity, or showed a capacity by which the Chieftaincy Tribunal's conclusion in favour of the Respondent can be justified or be supported and
(b) Whether the first appellant/respondent to the petition was customarily right to nominate the queenmother of Bando to ascend the male Krontire stool at a time she occupies the female stool? This latter act by the 1st appellant provoked the present action.
It is not in dispute that the determination of "b" supra is a "cause or matter affecting chieftaincy" within the language and meaning of the Chieftaincy Act, Act 370 of 1971 which defines a "cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy by S.66 as follows: In this Act, a "cause or matter affecting chieftaincy" means any cause, matter, question or dispute relating to any