JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.
In 1984 the applicant, Nana Kwamena Ekuntan II, was installed as chief of Dwomo in the Western Region. Before his installation, and during the period when the stool was vacant, the stool properties, including in particular the stool itself, were in the possession and custody of his head of family, ebusuapanyin Kobina Ansah. After his installation, he asked for the stool properties, but somehow he failed to recover them from the ebusuapanyin. He decided to resort to self-help. He sent two men, Kofi Annan and Bedu Mbom, to forcibly take them from the ebusuapanyin. They did and brought them to the chief. Aggrieved, the ebusuapanyin sued Kofi Annan and Bedu Mbom in the High Court, Sekondi for:
(a) a declaration that the removal of the Dwomo stool from the plaintiff’s custody by the defendants is unlawful and against custom; and
(b) an order for the return of the said stool to the plaintiff by the defendants."
At the trial, Nana Ekuntan gave evidence on behalf of the defendants, asserting that he sent them to collect the stool properties since as the chief he was entitled to their possession and custody.
The High Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, ebusuapanin Kobina Ansah. The judgment dated 18 May 1989 ended:
"The chief of Dwomo had no right without the consent of the plaintiff, to instruct the defendants to remove the stool. I give judgment in favour of the plaintiff and declare that the removal of the Dwomo stool from the plaintiff’s custody by the defendants is unlawful. The defendants are hereby ordered to return the stool to the plaintiff."
From that judgment , the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. They then applied to the High Court for a stay of execution of the order requesting them to return the stool to the plaintiff. The High [p.170] Court refused the application. The defendants repeated the application in the Court of Appeal. It is alleged that at the hearing of the application in the Court of Appeal, the court asked the defendants whether they had complied with the High Court's order. Upon being told that this had not been done because the properties were with Nana Ekuntan who was refusing to give them up, the Court of Appeal ordered Nana Ekuntan to be arrested on a bench warrant and be produced in court on 23 April 1990. That order prompted the present application for certiorari, asking us to quash it on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit itself is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, and th
