REPUBLIC v. ADA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL EX PARTE NENE OKUNNO PARTE NENE OKUNNO II [1971] 1 GLR 412-417
1971
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ABBAN J
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
1971
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Abban J considered an application by Nene Tsiatey Lanuer Okunno II, Divisional Chief of the Danmebiawe Division of Ada, seeking certiorari to quash an interlocutory suspension order of the Ada Traditional Council and prohibition to restrain the Council from proceeding on destoolment charges brought by a fellow Danmebiawe member. The certiorari limb was abandoned as out of time under Order 59 rule 3 of the Supreme (High) Court Rules, 1954. Central to the dispute was whether the Council had jurisdiction absent prior compliance with the Chieftaincy (Destoolment Proceedings) Regulations, 1963 (L.I. 309), which require a minister-approved list of stool elders and an elders’ prima facie decision before referral to the Council. The complainant relied on exhibit B and argued laches, citing Price v. Humphries, but the court distinguished Price, found the objection timely, doubted exhibit B’s authenticity, held L.I. 309 unmet, granted prohibition, and made no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.
The applicant herein sought for two reliefs, namely:
"(a) An order of certiorari to have the order of Ada Traditional Council dated 2nd May, 1968 quashed.
(b) An order prohibiting the said Traditional Council from hearing the charges of deposition filed against him by the complainant.”
"Briefly, the applicant herein is Nene Tsiatey Lanuer Okunno II, Divisional Chief of the Danmebiawe Division of Ada. The complainant, a member of Danmebiawe Division, believing that the applicant had committed certain customary offences, filed charges of deposition against him before the Ada Traditional Council. The applicant appeared before the said council and pleaded not liable to those charges. The traditional council then made an interlocutory order suspending the applicant as a chief pending the hearing of the said charges. The charges are yet to be gone into by the Ada Traditional Council. But, in the meantime, the applicant has brought the present application asking for the reliefs above stated.
It must be noted that learned counsel for the applicant in due course had to abandon that part of the application dealing with certiorari, because it became obvious that he was out of time so far as certiorari was concerned since the application was not made within six months after 2 May 1968 (see the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 59, r. 3). And since no enlargement of time was granted the application for certiorari was found to be grossly misconceived. Consequently arguments were heard only in respect of the order for prohibition.
It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the Ada Traditional Council is not properly seised of the complainant's destoolment charges as those charges were not first gone into by the stool elders of the applicant before they were lodged with the Ada Traditional Council. Counsel therefore submitted that the procedure adopted in bringing the matter before the council was contrary to the provisions of the Chieftaincy (Destoolment Proceedings) Regulations, 1963 (L.I. 309), and in those circumstances the Ada Traditional Council cannot exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
[p.415]
Learned counsel for the complainant in his reply submitted that the charges were duly lodged with the Ada Traditional Council. He contended that exhibit B attached to the supplemental affidavit filed in opposition by the complainant showed that the meeting of the stool elders of the appli