OSU STOOL v. UNILEVER (GH) LIMITED

J U D G M E N T

ATUGUBA, J.S.C:

The Osu Stool, the appellant herein purportedly acting through its lawful attorney, Nii Ako Nortei II, the Mankralo of Osu brought an action in the High Court Accra in respect of some Lands in Accra. However, Nii Nortey Owuo III intervened in the said suit by motion praying to be substituted as the sole person who can represent the Osu Stool in that litigation on the ground that he is the Osu Mantse. The High Court dismissed his application. When his application for Review failed he successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Mankralo has appealed to this court.

The Mankralo’s counsel submits that the applicant/respondent/respondent’s application for substitution, in his stead, as the sole and proper person to represent the Osu Stool in the aforementioned suit in the High Court was fought on affidavit evidence, which showed that the intervener’s claim to be the Osu Mantse (Chief of Osu) was challenged by him. In the circumstances, so the argument goes, this was a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy over which the High Court has no jurisdiction to determine.

On the facts of this case no real or genuine question arose concerning chieftaincy. The intervener attached to his motion, exhibit NNOI from the National Register of Chiefs evidencing his status as the Osu Mantse. Under Section 50(8) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1970 (Act 370) such an extract being evidence of “The contents of the Register shall be prima facie evidence of any facts or particulars stated therein.”

The appellant sought to nullify the effect of exhibit NNOI by resort to exhibit JKI and a publication in the Local Government Bulletin No.158 dated 15th August 1986. Exhibit JKI is a letter from the Greater Accra Regional Administrative Officer, dated 5th August 1986 stating inter alia that in accordance with “Government directive as announced on Friday 1st August, 1986 regarding the above subject,” government had withdrawn recognition from the intervener as Osu Mantse and that all processes leading to the acquisition of his status as a chief had been utterly nullified. In the court of Appeal the appellant’s counsel fastened on this and with ingenuity contended that as this was an act of the PNDC government the same is rendered inviolable by the transitional provisions of the 1992 Constitution. It is noticeable however that the publication in the Local Government Bulletin, No. 158 dated 15th August 1986, though subsequent in time to the said letter of the