NANA ANOCHIE IV v. NANA ARVO BLAY V
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- IRENE CHARITY LARBI MRS. J.A (PRESIDING)
- L. L. MENSAH (J.A)
- ANGELINA M. DOMAKYAAREH MRS. (J.A)
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sought to have the 3rd Defendant's name removed from the Chieftaincy register, claiming it was wrongfully entered. The High Court declined jurisdiction, indicating the case was a Chieftaincy matter, not administrative. This decision was appealed by the Plaintiff. The Court of Appeal analyzed the case, applied legal principles regarding jurisdiction, and affirmed the High Court's decision to decline jurisdiction, dismissing the Plaintiff's appeal.
IRENE CHARITY LARBI (MRS) J. A.
The Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) on 11th May, 2015 caused a Writ of Summons and its accompanying Statement of Claim to be issued from the registry of the High Court, Sekondi and served on the 1st and 2nd Defendants whoare the Western Region House of Chiefs and National House ofChiefs respectively.
The claims endorsed on the Writ seek the following reliefs;
1. An order that the entry of the name of the said Nana Arvo Blay in the Chieftaincy register through the gazette notification is wrongful in law.
2. An order to delete the name of the said Arvo Blay from the Chieftaincy register.
3. Costs.
The applicationfor joinder was granted on 18th July, 2016. Pursuant to the joinder ofthe Applicant, the Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Writ ofSummons and an Amended Statement of Claim with Nana Arvo Blayas the 3rd Defendant.
The Plaintiff then amended his reliefs as follows: a. An order that the entry of the name of the 3rd Defendant’s name in the Chieftaincy register through the gazette notification is wrongful in law.
b. An order directed at the 1st and 2nd Defendants to delete the name of the 3rd Defendant’s name in the Chieftaincy register.
c. An order for perpetual injunction directed at the 3rd Defendant to restrain him from carrying, styling himself as Chief of Anokyi.
d. Costs.
Upon the service of the Amended Writ of Summons on the 3rd Defendant, he filed a “Motion on Notice to Set Aside the Writ of Summons for wantof Jurisdiction. ”(4) The crux of the 3rd Defendant’s application was that by the amendment of the reliefs endorsed on the writ, the Plaintiff’s case is no more an administrative matter and particularly the relief “C” has metamorphosed the suit into a cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy thus taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with thesuit.
The 3rd Defendant contended that the suit under the circumstance shouldbe struck out since the appropriate forum for seeking such reliefs wouldbe the relevant Traditional Council and not the High Court.
On 1st March, 2017, the High Court, Sekondi delivered its decision anddeclined jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
It is against the said decisionthat the Plaintiff has filed this appeal on two main gr