GH - REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY SECRETARIAT AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ADANSI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.

In this application for an order of mandamus directed to the Chieftaincy Secretariat and the Commissioner responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs the applicants, the Adansi Traditional Council, rely on section 1 (2) (a) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 [p.738] (Act 81), and ask for the order to go to the respondents for their compliance with the section.

The facts upon which the application is based are not in dispute. It is clear from these facts that in 1963 the Fomena Traditional Council destooled two chiefs of Fomena, the Nifahene Nana Takyi Mensah and the Kyidomhene Nana Asiedu Bonkuro. The traditional council reported the destoolment in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Chieftaincy Act and the Chieftaincy Regulations, 1963 (L.I. 320). The report first went to the district commissioner and then to the regional commissioner. It would appear from the facts that the report of the destoolment did not in 1963 or at any time thereafter reach the Minister responsible for Chieftaincy Affairs to enable him to take any action thereon. Nothing seems to have been done by the Fomena Traditional Council to pursue the matter of the destoolment of the two chiefs and it would appear as if for some reason not apparent to me, the matter of the destoolment was allowed by all parties concerned to lapse. The next thing that happened was in 1967. In August of that year the Adansi Traditional Council, which had by then replaced the Fomena Traditional Council, confirmed the said destoolments and then made their own report to the district administrative officer in accordance with L.I. 320. That official, who had taken over from the previous district commissioner brought the matter to the notice of the affected chiefs and then he in turn reported to the regional administrative officer of Ashanti. That officer by a letter dated 28 November 1967 submitted his report to the Chieftaincy Secretariat and it is admitted that the secretariat received the report in December 1967. No appeal was at any time lodged by either the Nifahene or Kyidomhene either in 1963 or in 1967 and there is no dispute that the time for appealing has passed.

It is I think clear from the papers put in evidence that the respondents have received the report of the destoolment and it is also reasonably clear that no decision has been taken by them in terms of section 1 (2) (a) of the Chieftaincy Act either to withdraw recognition from the two chiefs or to refuse to withdraw recogn

JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.

REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY SECRETARIAT AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE ADANSI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

Areas of Law

JUDGEMENT