1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Edward Wiredu J.S.C., dismissed an appeal arising from the National House of Chiefs’ judgment affirming the Central Region House of Chiefs in favor of a member of the Ntwea Royal Family within the Eguafo Traditional Area. The controversy centered on the first appellant’s role in nominating the queenmother of Bando to ascend the male Krontire stool while she occupied the female stool, and on the respondent’s asserted capacity to challenge that nomination. The Court held that the dispute over the queenmother’s simultaneous ascent falls within a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy under section 66 of Act 370 and accepted the tribunals’ finding that a queenmother cannot ascend the male stool simultaneously. On capacity, relying on Nana Gyamfi, it found a royal may sue even absent office, and invoking Mantse Kwadwo Ababio, Rule 22 of C.I. 27 and Article 129(4), allowed amendment to reflect the respondent’s personal capacity. The appeal was dismissed.
EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chief 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 the determine who is the accredited head of Ntwea 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 of matter affecting chieftaincy” means any cause, matter, question or dispute relating to any o