HACKMAN AND OTHERS v. OBRESI v. AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.

This is an application for an order of interim injunction in the nature of quo warrant to restrain the defendants from celebrating an annual festival at Otuam. The major burden of this proceeding, is to inquire whether or not there is a chief at Otuam in the Ekumfi Otuam Traditional Area. The plaintiff in this case contends that there has been no chief at Otuam since the death of Nana Ewusi Kwansa XIII, the former occupant of the Otuam stool. The defendants deny this allegation. Pending the final determination of the suit, the plaintiff seeks an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from celebrating the annual festival of Otuam known as the Akwambo festival. One fact which is judicially noticed is that in the traditional set-up of this country. the celebration of a festival is an important customary function in which the chief of the area concerned plays a vital and an indispensable role. He has a very sacred role to play in the performance of customary rites. The plaintiff's case is that since there is no chief at Otuam, the annual Akwambo festival cannot be celebrated by the defendants who contend that there is a chief at Otuam; and that he is Nana Ewusi Kwansa XIII who is competent to authorise the celebration of the said festival. The defendants say that the latter has been nominated, elected and installed as the chief of Otuam and the application being made by the plaintiff is incompetent. The defendants also submit that inasmuch as the applicant did not seek leave of the court by an ex parte motion, the application is incompetent. I, however, overruled the latter submission on the ground that failure to seek prior leave of the court was [p.661] not such a serious irregularity as to vitiate the proceedings if the court felt that there was a certain degree of urgency about the application and also if the application was in the court's view not frivolous and vexatious.

With regard to the main issue, it has been submitted on behalf of the defendants that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The argument is that it is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy in which the traditional council or the Central Regional House of Chiefs has exclusive jurisdiction. I do not venture to quarrel or refute the argument that the High Court or, for that matter, the ordinary courts lack jurisdiction to entertain causes and matters affecting chieftaincy. This question has been settled by the Court of Appeal in the case of Toba