Try asking the following...
RULING
ANIN YEBOAH JSC:
On 23/07/2014, we upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed this action. We now proceed to offer our reasons. On the 20/05/2013, the plaintiff herein who is a citizen of Mpraeso and claims to be an affected subject of Mpraeso stool,( a town in the Eastern Region of Ghana) sued the defendants herein who are the Chief of Mpraeso and a limited liability entity respectively before this court. The nature of the case is such that it would be useful at this stage of this ruling to recap the reliefs sought on the writ;
1. A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Article 267(1) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana the 1st defendant qua Ohene “chief” of Mpraeso has no right to sell the stool lands of Mpraeso without the consent of the substools and subjects under the Mpraeso stool occupied for the time being by the 1st defendant.
2. A declaration that by virtue of Article 36(8) of the 1992 Constitution, the subjects of stools are entitled to a true and verifiable account of all revenue from stool lands from chiefs and managers of stool lands.
3. An order directing the 2nd defendant by himself or privies, servants, workers etc to cease from all activities, development or otherwise on Mpraeso stool lands leased to it by the 1st defendant.
Upon service of the writ, the 1st defendant on 5/7/2013 filed Notice of Intention to raise and rely on preliminary objection. For a fuller record the preliminary objection was couched as follows:
1. The Honourable Court should decline jurisdiction on the grounds that this is a civil right dressed as an “interpretation or enforcement action”
2. This is an abuse of the processes of the court as the plaintiff is only forum shopping.
The plaintiff has invoked our original jurisdiction for the reliefs stated above. It is therefore the duty of the plaintiff to demonstrate to this court that our jurisdiction has been properly invoked. This he can do by showing as per his writ and reliefs sought that his case presented to this court raises a real or genuine issue for interpretation or enforcement. As the plaintiff’s action is founded on Articles 267(1) and 36(8) of the 1992 Constitution, perhaps it would throw more light on the geniuses or otherwise of the invocation of our original jurisdiction if both Articles are discussed in detail.
Article 36(8) of the Constitution states as follows;
“The state shall recognize that ownership and possession of land carry a social obligati