NDASUAH AND OTHERS v. ADAZIE AND OTHERS
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SMITH J
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Customary Law
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court examined the jurisdictional limits of the State Council in hearing complaints regarding the dismissal of Asafo Captains. It was determined that the State Council had the inherent power to review such dismissals, as they affect the welfare of the State and involve native custom and law. However, the State Council lacked the jurisdiction to impose penalties on the defendants. The application was granted in part, affirming the State Council's jurisdiction to hear the complaint but voiding the penalties imposed.
JUDGMENT OF SMITH J.
(His lordship referred to the facts and continued).
Jurisdiction is claimed for the State Council on the basis that the matter is of a "constitutional nature" as defined in section 2 of the State Councils Ordinance, No. 8 of 1952. In my opinion, however, an Asafu Captain is not a " chief "—a prerequisite before a State Council can hear destoolment charges. It was also argued that the State Council had the right to entertain the matter by virtue of section 2 (c) of the State Councils Ordinance. That subsection merely confers on the State Council power to [p.14] decide on the claim of any person to take part in the ceremony of the installation or destoolment of a chief. An English analogy would be the Committee of Claims which sits to determine claims made by persons to take part in the Coronation ceremony. I agree with counsel for applicants that the State Council had no jurisdiction in the matter under the State Councils Ordinance.
There is, however, the point (unassailable, in my opinion) that a State Council has inherent power to enquire into those matters which affect the welfare of the State and which are governed by the application of customary native law. In the case of Ebratwawu v. Potaisie (unreported) Dennison, J. upheld the decision of the Municipal Court, Sekondi to refer to the State Council, as the body having this inherent power to determine such matters, the question whether the head of a family had been properly elected. If the validity of the election of the head of a family is a proper matter to be referred to a State Council, how much more the dismissal of Asafo Captains.
I agree with Mr. Blay that the State Council would have no power to constitute itself as a court of first instance, so to speak, and to try this particular matter. But the State Council has not in fact done so in the present case. Certain persons (the Asafu Captains) were aggrieved at the method by which they had been dismissed, claiming that the appropriate native custom and law had not been observed. They complained to the State Council¾which is in my view the proper forum for such matters¾and it was for the State Council then to decide whether there had been a valid dismissal or not. The Council was not sitting at first instance to hear and determine dismissal charges, but simply on a reference made to them to see that what had been done had been validly done. There is no conflict, in the circumstances, with the reasoning and ruling (with w