REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, KUMASI AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FOSUHENE
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SOWAH C.J.
- ADADE
- FRANCOIS
- WUAKU
- AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In Ghana’s Supreme Court, Asante Fosuhene sought certiorari to overturn the High Court, Kumasi’s refusal to review its dismissal of his contempt application arising from the Adansi chieftaincy dispute. Fosuhene had earlier immobilized the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs’ judicial committee with an ex parte prohibition and interim stay, then allowed his motion to linger until November 1988, during which the Asanteman Council instructed Adansi elders to proceed with nominating and installing an Adansihene. The High Court (Lartey J.) linked Fosuhene’s inordinate delay to the alleged contempt and held that the statutory route under section 26(7) of the Chieftaincy Act governs contempt flowing from chieftaincy proceedings, dismissing his application with costs; a subsequent review was refused. On certiorari, Francois J.S.C. underscored that any error in interpreting section 26(7) was for appeal, not certiorari. Supervisory relief is discretionary, and the applicant’s stratagem and tardiness counseled against intervention. Adade J.S.C. concurred, highlighting the discretionary nature of review. The Court unanimously dismissed the application.
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.
This application for certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court, Kumasi is an off-shoot of a long ding-dong chieftaincy tussle affecting the applicant, the Adansi stool and its elders — the respondents.
The applicant is no stranger to this court. His attempt to acquire recognition as a chief of Adansi, by the fiat of this court on technical grounds, and the legal challenges this provoked, led to his initial acquaintance with the supreme Court. That suit was remitted to the appropriate chieftaincy tribunal for early trial on the merits. The present application illustrates the chequered course that suit took and the peripheral hurdles which have prevented its early resolution. The applicant, it must also be recorded, acquired a further measure of notice with an application for review, whose refusal on legal grounds, helped in the formulation of tests for the exercise of our newly found review jurisdiction.
It has been necessary to recall these matters to address the riddle that has kept a simple chieftaincy dispute unresolved for so long. The backdrop is also important because it confirms what has been pressed on us before, that the Adansi State has secured pre-eminence within the Ashanti Confederacy, and the absence of a reigning chief in that state can only presage difficulties.
Now briefly to the facts. The applicant, for a reason not fully disclosed, found the judicial committee of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs, unacceptable as a tribunal for the determination of the chieftaincy matter in which he was involved. He sought the assistance of the High Court, by invoking its supervisory powers to immobilise the chieftaincy tribunal of the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs in the exercise of its judicial functions. The ex parte application for an order of prohibition was granted and a pursuant motion was filed on 9 August 1988. But for some curious reason the date fixed for the hearing of the motion was pushed far back to 2 November 1988. It is said the intervening legal vacation made it inconvenient to deal with the application more expeditiously. That reason appears hollow and unacceptable since the applicant also obtained an interim stay of proceedings on 4 August 1988 during the vacation which incapacitated the regional tribunal and the parties from proceeding with the pressing chieftaincy matter and removed entirely.
[p.318]
The only rational answer to the question why the application was filed in the vacati