REPUBLIC v. FODOME TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EXPARTE ASEM AND OTHER

JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.A.

On 16 September 1985, Togbe Gbedegbleme Honu III, Paramount Chief of Fodome Traditional Area and ten other persons assisted by a recorder constituted themselves into a "Fodome Traditional Council" and proceeded "to settle a dispute between the Anyigbe and Dzise clans of Fodome Amele in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy." The proceedings were recorded by a Mr. Nazarious B. Klu who was appointed for that purpose. The council after hearing evidence from the parties and their witnesses delivered its "judgment" on the same date. The Anyigbe clan represented by David Akabua Asem and two others lost the action. They were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the "judgment" of the Fodome Traditional Council. Pursuant to leave granted them by the High Court, Ho they successfully obtained an order of that court quashing and setting aside the [p.48] "judgment" of the said Fodome Traditional Council. The representatives of the Dzise clan were aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, Ho and appealed to this court on a number of grounds.

Before us one ground of appeal that was argued was formulated as follows: "2 That the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that certiorari could issue to quash the proceedings of the Fodome Traditional Council." Learned counsel for the appellants stated that what the council referred to and described in the proceedings as "Fodome Traditional Council" was not and had never been a traditional council established and constituted pursuant to the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). He stated that the body that was described and referred to in the proceedings as "Fodome Traditional Council" was an assembly of chiefs of the Fodome Traditional Area that met from time to time to deliberate on matters affecting the welfare and progress of the Fodome Traditional Area. He contended that the Fodome Traditional Council was not known to the law because it was not a creature of statute. He submitted that the Fodome Traditional Council that "settled" the chieftaincy matter was not an adjudicating body. The writ of certiorari did not lie to quash its proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents argued the contrary.

He contended that the procedure adopted and followed by the Fodome Traditional Council left no doubt that it was engaged in adjudicating in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. He submitted that the learned trial judge was right in holding that in the circumstances a writ of certiorari was availa