NOYE NORTEY & Others v. NII TETTEH ASHONG
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SACKEY TORKORNOO (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)
- AMADU JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC
- KULENDI JSC
- ASIEDU JSC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case centers on whether the position of Chief Fisherman qualifies as a chieftaincy status, which would determine the jurisdiction of the High Court in adjudicating the matter. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the position did not qualify as a chieftaincy status. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, declaring the High Court's judgment null for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the position of Chief Fisherman does not qualify as a chieftaincy status, thereby affirming the jurisdiction of the High Court and ruling in favor of the appellants once again.
AMADU JSC:
INTRODUCTION
( 1) The key legal question for determination in the instant appeal is whether the
Trial High Court Tema, had jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter brought
before it. For the Respondent, the action commenced by the Appellants was a
cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, hence, the trial court was bereft of jurisdiction. The Appellants have contested this assertion, contending that,
since a Chief Fisherman is not a chief properly so-called, their action is not a
cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. In this appeal, we shall introspect these
varying legal contentions and examine the interrogatory whether the Court of
Appeal was right in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground
that the Appellants’ action is “a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy”.
BACKGROUND
( 2) On the 29th of December 2015, the Plaintiffs/ Respondents/Appellants
(hereinafter referred to as the “Appellants”) issued out a writ of summons
against the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
“Respondent”) claiming the following reliefs:
(a) “A declaration that the Defendant had validly been
removed from the office as the Chief Fisherman of Kpone
Traditional Area.
(b) An order of account of all monies, items and such other
materials and logistics received by the Defendant on
behalf of the fisher-folks of Kpone Traditional area during
his tenure of office.
(c) An order directed at the Defendant to return all items and
regalia (sic) his custody pertaining to the office and given
to him by the Plaintiffs on assumption of office.
(d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the
Defendant from acting or showing up as Chief Fisherman
of Kpone Traditional Area.”
( 3) The facts as alleged in the statement of claim are that, the Appellants are the
constituent body who install the Chief Fishermen of Kpone from the three
constituent families of Kpone Traditional Area and by customary law and
practice can also depose the Chief Fisherman. The Appellants averred in
paragraph 1 of the statement of claim that, the 1st Appellant (now deceased)
was the Chief Priest of the Kpone Traditional Area, whereas the other
Appellants are the principal members of the Fishermen Council of Kpone. The
Respondent is the current Chief Fisherman of Kpone.
( 4) According to the Appellants, since the Respondent was appointed as the Chief
Fisherman, he severed all cordial relations with the Appellants and the larger
p