Nii Borlarbi Kukubi Okanshan VI v. Christopher Okoe Boye and 3 Ors

Before me is an application by Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants (Defendants) praying this Court for an order striking out the plaintiff/respondent’s (Plaintiff) Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the basis that the gravamen as contained in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the Statement of Claim are matters that are causes or matters affecting chieftaincy.

And, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear such matters.

The Plaintiff obviously disagrees with the Defendants, and contends that the Plaintiff’s reliefs are administrative in nature and so this Court is seized with jurisdiction.

It is provided under Section 57 of the Courts Act 1993, Act 459 as follows: “Subject to the Constitution, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, a Regional Tribunal, a Circuit Court and a District Court shall not entertain either at first instance or on appeal a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. ”Under Section 76 of the Chieftaincy Act 2008, Act 759, “cause or matter affecting chieftaincy” has been interpreted as a cause, matter, question or dispute relating to any of the following: “(a) the nomination, election, selection or installation of a person as a chief or the claim of a person to be nominated, elected, selected or installed as a chief, (b) The deposition or abdication of a chief, (c) The right of a person to take part in the nomination, election, selection or installation of a person as a chief or in the deposition of a chief, (d) The recovery or delivery of stool property in connection with the nomination, election, selection, installation, deposition or abdication of a chief, and(e) The constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs. ” See also Section 117 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459. It flows from the above that with the exception of the Supreme Court, no court in this Country has jurisdiction to hear and determine, either at first instance, or on appeal, any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which falls within Section 76 of Act 759. There is a plethora of judicial decisions on the limitation of jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters.

Notable among them are : (1) In re Wa-Na; Republic v. Fijoli-Na; Ex Parte Yakubu (1987-88)1 GLR 180, CA; (2) Republic v, High Court, Denu; Ex parte Avadali IV (1993-94) 1 GLR 561, SC; (3) Republic v High Court, Cape-Coast; Ex parte Kow Larbie (1994-95)GBR 553, SC.

However, Section 43 of Act 759 gives the High Court Supervisory Jurisdiction as follows: “Despite a provision of this Act, the High Court has sup