REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE PUPLAMPU I

JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.

This is an application by Nene Buernortey Puplampu I, divisional chief of the Adibiawe Division of the Ada Traditional Area for an order of certiorari to bring up and quash:

"(1) The ruling of Lutterodt J dated 17 July 1990 in suit No 1747/1988 in the High Court, Accra, entitled: Republic v. Judicial Tribunal of the National House of Chiefs and Jonathan Kabu Dorkutso otherwise Nene Abram Kabu Akuaku III.

(2) In the alternative, an order for an extension of time to apply for such order of certiorari.”

Sometime in 1978 the applicant brought an action against the second respondent before the judicial committee of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa. During the pendency of the suit, an application for an interim injunction was brought and the ruling given against the applicant who appealed to the National House of Chiefs. The applicant says that despite his interlocutory appeal to the National House of Chiefs, the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs went on to [p.475] hear the substantive suit and judgment was given against him. He had the said judgment quashed by an order of certiorari by the High Court, Accra presided over by Osei-Hwere J (as he then was) on 7 June 1983.

Meanwhile he continued to prosecute the interlocutory appeal before the National House of Chiefs, but he forgot to bring the ruling in the certiorari proceedings to the notice of the National House of Chiefs. On 15 June 1988 when the appeal was being adjourned for judgment he however, reminded his counsel who in turn mentioned the said certiorari order to respondent-tribunal and offered to produce a certified copy the next day. According to the applicant, the respondent-tribunal gave no answer, but fixed the date of adjournment to 17 June 1988. What transpired on 17 June 1988 is not stated by the applicant nor has he exhibited the alleged judgment to this application. It was this judgment that was the subject matter for certiorari before Lutterodt J (as she then was). The parties admit that Lutterodt J (as she then was) gave a ruling, decision or judgment on 27 July 1990 dismissing the application. That judgment too was not exhibited in this proceeding.

The arguments of the applicant briefly stated are that the interlocutory decisions given by the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs, the National House of Chiefs and that of Lutterodt J (as she then was) are all a nullity, and must be brought up to be quashed. On the question of nullity, learned counsel r