MATHEW SAAHENE vs NANA KWADWO TENTEN II & ANOR

The Plaintiff caused a writ to be issued out of the registry of this court claiming the following reliefs

“1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not Odikro or Chief of New Longoro in the Bono East Region of Ghana

1. A declaration that the purported enstoolment of the 1st Defendant as Odikro or Chief of New Longoro is null and void and has no legal effect

2. An order setting aside the Gazette or Entry of the name of the 1st Defendant in the Register of the National Register of Chiefs as Odikro of New Longoro dated 22-12-2021

3. An order directed to the 2nd Defendant to expunge the name of the 1st Defendant from the National Register of Chiefs as Odikro of New Longoro

5.General damages

1. An order for perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from holding himself out or styling himself as Odikro or Chief of New Longoro in the Bono East Region.

2. Costs emanating from the suit including Plaintiff’s lawyer’s legal fees.”

The 1st Defendant/Applicant upon service has brought the present motion for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that same is a Cause or Matter affecting chieftaincy and for want of jurisdiction. Arguing the motion is was contended that having regards to the reliefs sought the suit is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The case of In Re Nungua Chieftaincy Affairs, Nii Odai Ayiku IV v. Attorney General & Wor Nii Bortelabi Borketey Laweh XIV [2010] SCGLR 413 was referenced for the proposition that the matter cannot be resolved without evidence being led on how the Applicant was enstooled thereby making it a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which this court lacks jurisdiction. The case of THE REPUBLIC VS. THE HIGH COURT KOFORIDUA; EXPARTE OTUTU KONO III ; AKUAPEM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [Civil Motion j5/9/2008, delivered on the 22nd of October 2008 was also cited for the same proposition.

It was finally contended that the proper forum is the Traditional Council hence this court should decline jurisdiction and dismiss the suit.

The Plaintiff/Respondent is not amused with the position taken by the Applicant and contends that the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and lower adjudicating authorities which includes the 2nd Defendant hence is clothed with the jurisdiction to set aside the gazette issued to the Applicant by the 2nd Defendant. It was further contended that the reliefs sought are not causes or matters affecting Chieftaincy as stipulated under Section 76 of the Chieft