2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a chieftaincy dispute that escalated from the Judicial Committee of the Mampong Traditional Council to the Judicial Committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs, and then to the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, before reaching the Supreme Court. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court supported the findings of the JCMTC, dismissing the previous rulings of the appellate committees. The plaintiffs applied for a review of this decision, alleging bias and fundamental errors, but the majority found no evidence of bias or exceptional circumstances to warrant a review and dismissed the application. The dissenting opinions argued that the majority failed to appreciate the principles of customary law, particularly the right of the overlord to withdraw conferred titles when acts of rebellion are established.
RULING
BENIN, JSC: (FOR THE MAJORITY OPINION)
The processes culminating in this review application began at the Judicial Committee of the Mampong Traditional Council (JCMTC) where the plaintiffs,herein referred to as the applicants, sued the defendants, herein referred to as the respondents in a chieftaincy matter. The JCMTC dismissed the action by the applicants. Not satisfied with the decision by the JCMTC, the applicants appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs (JCARHC) which allowed the appeal. The respondents also appealed against the decision of the JCARHC to the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs (JCNHC) which dismissed the appeal. The respondents appealed against the decision of the JCNHC to this court which by a majority decision allowed the appeal on 21st May 2014.
By the present application the applicants are asking this court to review its decision delivered on 21st May 2014. The applicants canvassed two grounds and these are set out in paragraph 3 at page 2 of the accompanying statement of case filed on 14th August 2014. They read:
bias and,
other fundamental and basic errors of law and facts committed by the Court, not necessarily amounting to bias, but causing a substantial miscarriage of justice to the applicants.
Before proceeding with this application, it is necessary to recount the facts of the case. The applicants sought these reliefs against the respondents at the JCMTC:
A declaration that the priviledge previously vested in the Yonso Bedomasi-Bretuo family to nominate, elect and install a Yonsohene was validly abrogated by Nana Adu Gyamfi Brobbey III the then Jamasihene when the said family rebelled against the Jamasi stool and proclaimed itself no longer subject to the traditional authority of the Jamasi stool.
A declaration that Nana Yeboah Kodie Asare II was lawfully elevated to the status of Yonsohene and Benkumhene of Jamasi by Nana Adu Gyamfi Brobbey III in the face of the said rebellion and all customary rites were duly performed to seal the elevation.
A declaration that the purported nomination, election and installation of one Francis Yaw Adusei (the 8th defendant) by the Yonso Bedomasi-Bretuo family or any other person as Yonsohene is contrary to Ashanti custom and usage and that the same is therefore null and void.
A declaration that Nana Oforiwaa Amanfo, the second defendant herein is an Obaapanin of Yonso Bretuo-Bedomasi family and not the queen mother of Yonso.